I like this idea. But why not set up welfare science, an interdisciplinary field including welfare economics, welfare biology, and positive psychology?
I think it’s right to think outside econ, but this name doesn’t quite sound right to me—things that call themselves “X science” often aren’t, e.g. Christian science. And there already is an emerging field around “global priorities research”, which seems to me to get closer to the pivotal questions in EA than a narrow focus on econ/bio/psych would.
Yeah, imo the most natural thing is to make “global priorities research” a discipline. Maybe there should also be other (sub)disciplines that are more cause specific, ie related to (human) wellbeing, existential risks, etc.
Or maybe just “priorities research”. You could have different researchers focusing on different levels, some on global problems and some on local ones.
Pros:
Easier to digest for most people, who also value solving local issues
We do want prioritisation to also happen at national/municipal levels and not just globally
Perhaps this could even free up budget for more foreign aid, although I’m a bit doubtful
Cons:
Maybe national level research would be much more popular, and thus we’d lose an important part of what we want this to achieve
National interests often conflict with global ones
I like this idea. But why not set up welfare science, an interdisciplinary field including welfare economics, welfare biology, and positive psychology?
Or “wellbeing science”. Either would be better than welfare economics. We’re more than economists.
I think it’s right to think outside econ, but this name doesn’t quite sound right to me—things that call themselves “X science” often aren’t, e.g. Christian science. And there already is an emerging field around “global priorities research”, which seems to me to get closer to the pivotal questions in EA than a narrow focus on econ/bio/psych would.
Yeah, imo the most natural thing is to make “global priorities research” a discipline. Maybe there should also be other (sub)disciplines that are more cause specific, ie related to (human) wellbeing, existential risks, etc.
Or maybe just “priorities research”. You could have different researchers focusing on different levels, some on global problems and some on local ones.
Pros:
Easier to digest for most people, who also value solving local issues
We do want prioritisation to also happen at national/municipal levels and not just globally
Perhaps this could even free up budget for more foreign aid, although I’m a bit doubtful
Cons:
Maybe national level research would be much more popular, and thus we’d lose an important part of what we want this to achieve
National interests often conflict with global ones