Strongly agree. I definitely would like to see more content on neartermist causes/ careers. But importantly, I would like to see this content contributed by authors who hold neartermist views and can give those topics justice. Whilst I am appreciative of 80,000 Hours and GWWC attempting to accomodate longtermism-skeptics with some neartermist content, their neartermist content feels condescending because it doesn’t properly showcase the perspectives of Effective Altruists who are skeptical of longtermist framings.
I also personally worry 80,000 Hours is seen as the “official EA cause prioritisation” resource and this:
alienates readers with different views and conclusions,
does not show that the EA community has diverse and varied views,
has misled readers into thinking there is an “official EA position” on best careers/ cause areas
Having more neartermist content will help with this, but I also would like to see 80,000 Hours host content from authors with clashing views. E.g., 80,000 makes a very forceful case that Climate Change is not a material X-Risk, and I would like to see disagreeing writers critique that view on their site.
I also think you hit the nail on the head about many readers being unreceptive to longtermism for concerns like tractability, and that is entirely valid for them.
Thanks Mohammed—yes as a mostly-near-termist myself I agree with many your concerns as well. For this post though I was making an argument which assumes longtermist causes are by far the most important, but like you say there are plenty of other arguments that can be made if we don’t necessarily assume that as well.
I agree that as 80,000 hours is so influential and a “front door” to Effective Altruism, the site could mislead readers into thinking there is an official “EA position” on the best careers and causes—although 80,000 hours do say they are “part of the EA community” rather than actively claiming a leadership role.
And I really like the idea of having some discourse and disagreement on the site itself, that feels like a genuine and “EA” style way to go about things.
And thinking about your “condescending” comment, as well as the career example I listed, The “Problems many of our readers prioritise” could be easily interpreted as condescention as well. I don’t think 80,000 hours are trying to be condescending, but it is easy to interpret that way.
Strongly agree. I definitely would like to see more content on neartermist causes/ careers. But importantly, I would like to see this content contributed by authors who hold neartermist views and can give those topics justice. Whilst I am appreciative of 80,000 Hours and GWWC attempting to accomodate longtermism-skeptics with some neartermist content, their neartermist content feels condescending because it doesn’t properly showcase the perspectives of Effective Altruists who are skeptical of longtermist framings.
I also personally worry 80,000 Hours is seen as the “official EA cause prioritisation” resource and this:
alienates readers with different views and conclusions,
does not show that the EA community has diverse and varied views,
has misled readers into thinking there is an “official EA position” on best careers/ cause areas
Having more neartermist content will help with this, but I also would like to see 80,000 Hours host content from authors with clashing views. E.g., 80,000 makes a very forceful case that Climate Change is not a material X-Risk, and I would like to see disagreeing writers critique that view on their site.
I also think you hit the nail on the head about many readers being unreceptive to longtermism for concerns like tractability, and that is entirely valid for them.
Thanks Mohammed—yes as a mostly-near-termist myself I agree with many your concerns as well. For this post though I was making an argument which assumes longtermist causes are by far the most important, but like you say there are plenty of other arguments that can be made if we don’t necessarily assume that as well.
I agree that as 80,000 hours is so influential and a “front door” to Effective Altruism, the site could mislead readers into thinking there is an official “EA position” on the best careers and causes—although 80,000 hours do say they are “part of the EA community” rather than actively claiming a leadership role.
And I really like the idea of having some discourse and disagreement on the site itself, that feels like a genuine and “EA” style way to go about things.
And thinking about your “condescending” comment, as well as the career example I listed, The “Problems many of our readers prioritise” could be easily interpreted as condescention as well. I don’t think 80,000 hours are trying to be condescending, but it is easy to interpret that way.