This kinda reminds me of a post that asked if EAs would have been as in favour as the abolition of slavery as a particular extremely hard-line anti-slavery activist at the time who we morally laud today as a moral exemplar, but who everyone at the time thought was a shocking PETA-type extremist. (Found the post)
The comment posed by @emre kaplanđž there I think is very illuminating.
Scott Alexander somewhere on the forum wrote a comment I mostly agree with (where he was giving caution to a proâPause AI post, cant find) that most, or at least a significant amount that we cannot discount, amount of social change comes as a consequence of people that want change working from within the system and gaining high status from within the system to be able to affect changeâbecause the people who have the power to then make change like these high status people and want their respect.
This all just leads me to the fairly obvious conclusion that like with AI Safety and Slavery Abolition, EAsâhypothetically placed at any place in historyâare most likely to be found working within a system gaining enough status to slowly and reliably tweak the status quo in a positive direction.
There is no contradiction between being opposed to Prohibition but in favour of finding a reliable way to get people to drink less alcohol.
Reminds me of something similar Kelsey Piper wrote:
âWould an effective altruist movement in the 1840s U.S. have been abolitionist?â
âNext, imagine someone walked into that 1840s EA group and said, âI think black people are exactly as valuable as white people and it should be illegal to discriminate against them at all,â or someone walked into the 1920s EA group and said, âI think gay rights are really important.â I want us to be a community that wouldnât have kicked them out.â
I think EA would have been a place in the 19th century that would have tolerated if not agreed with abolitionist views. My fear is that EAsâ position to someone like Benjamin Lay would be his work as futile effort on an intractable problem and instead focus on improving welfare of slaves on plantations through some type of scheme. And this is my concern of EAs today, that the community leaves impact on the table by not pursuing systems change (e.g. political system reform) because it seems to have low tractability.
One of the reasons why I chose Prohibition is because itâs a failed policy. A successful policy like the abolition of slavery introduces more potential for cognitive bias, like the tendency to view successful policies as inevitable or to support a position because of its success (âThey like the strong horse.â)
I like to think that I wouldâve been pro-abolition. But youâre right, I donât know whether 19thC me wouldâve considered slavery a tractable issue. I also think there wouldâve been a values call at some point, when it became clear the only path to abolition was via organized violence (war). Now Iâm curious about how abolitionist pacifist groups like the Quakers addressed the topic. Iâm going to squeeze that into my research this week.
Side note, Iâm coming around to the idea the Prohibition isnât actually a failed policy (except in the sense that it was overturned), because the decrease in domestic violence actually exceeded the amount of violence perpetrated by bootleggers. But from a democratic policymaking perspective, the legibility of the violence matters.
iirc there were prominent thinkers in the 19th Century like Thomas Jefferson who decried Slavery as a moral monstrosity but lamented that things could not be any other way (TEDx animation is where I remember this from).
And they held this view and wrote about it mere months before abolition laws were to be passed. Social change can happen faster than people predict it possible.
I think reactions to this this 2020 comment by @Gregory Lewisđž â which criticises Wayne Hsiung for his proposal to disrupt EAG SF 2015 over their decision to serve animals at the conference â is evidence of the way in which Benjamin Lay would have been treated by EAs.
Iâm sympathetic to both sides here.
On the one hand, your communityâs cohesiveness will be undermined if you donât punish people who deliberately and provactively violate your community norms and polarise your community in the pursuit of political goals. Iâm inclined to think that EAs talking about upholding norms like âhelpfulness, honesty, compromise, and friendlinessâ is more about protecting the EA community than actually being the best way to maximise the good with a given unit of resources, even in the long term.
On the other, I think disruptive and norm-breaking tactics like those deployed by Lay and Hsiung are a) justified under many circumstances and b) necessary for effecting social change. And I worry some EAs are too quick to dismiss radicals like Lay and Hsiung for reasons that are more aesthetic than anything else.
Yea thatâs the one thanx. I notice I could have found that by going to âSaved & Readâ and then âVote Historyâ which was a bit hidden so didnât know to go there.
Would be great if I could filter the Vote History page to only see comments I have reacted to in a particular way
E.g. I go there and filter to only show comments I have âhelpfulâ reacted to would make finding Scottâs comment a lot easier in the future when this comment otherwise become buried under years of other comments.
In fact, most useful would be to be able to filter by âChanged my mindâ reactions.
This kinda reminds me of a post that asked if EAs would have been as in favour as the abolition of slavery as a particular extremely hard-line anti-slavery activist at the time who we morally laud today as a moral exemplar, but who everyone at the time thought was a shocking PETA-type extremist. (Found the post)
The comment posed by @emre kaplanđž there I think is very illuminating.
Scott Alexander somewhere on the forum wrote a comment I mostly agree with (where he was giving caution to a proâPause AI post, cant find) that most, or at least a significant amount that we cannot discount, amount of social change comes as a consequence of people that want change working from within the system and gaining high status from within the system to be able to affect changeâbecause the people who have the power to then make change like these high status people and want their respect.
This all just leads me to the fairly obvious conclusion that like with AI Safety and Slavery Abolition, EAsâhypothetically placed at any place in historyâare most likely to be found working within a system gaining enough status to slowly and reliably tweak the status quo in a positive direction.
There is no contradiction between being opposed to Prohibition but in favour of finding a reliable way to get people to drink less alcohol.
Reminds me of something similar Kelsey Piper wrote:
âWould an effective altruist movement in the 1840s U.S. have been abolitionist?â
âNext, imagine someone walked into that 1840s EA group and said, âI think black people are exactly as valuable as white people and it should be illegal to discriminate against them at all,â or someone walked into the 1920s EA group and said, âI think gay rights are really important.â I want us to be a community that wouldnât have kicked them out.â
I think EA would have been a place in the 19th century that would have tolerated if not agreed with abolitionist views. My fear is that EAsâ position to someone like Benjamin Lay would be his work as futile effort on an intractable problem and instead focus on improving welfare of slaves on plantations through some type of scheme. And this is my concern of EAs today, that the community leaves impact on the table by not pursuing systems change (e.g. political system reform) because it seems to have low tractability.
A more discomforting question is whether EA would have tolerated people who were pro-slavery!
Good analysis.
One of the reasons why I chose Prohibition is because itâs a failed policy. A successful policy like the abolition of slavery introduces more potential for cognitive bias, like the tendency to view successful policies as inevitable or to support a position because of its success (âThey like the strong horse.â)
I like to think that I wouldâve been pro-abolition. But youâre right, I donât know whether 19thC me wouldâve considered slavery a tractable issue. I also think there wouldâve been a values call at some point, when it became clear the only path to abolition was via organized violence (war). Now Iâm curious about how abolitionist pacifist groups like the Quakers addressed the topic. Iâm going to squeeze that into my research this week.
Side note, Iâm coming around to the idea the Prohibition isnât actually a failed policy (except in the sense that it was overturned), because the decrease in domestic violence actually exceeded the amount of violence perpetrated by bootleggers. But from a democratic policymaking perspective, the legibility of the violence matters.
Hereâs an essay from Vox making this case.
iirc there were prominent thinkers in the 19th Century like Thomas Jefferson who decried Slavery as a moral monstrosity but lamented that things could not be any other way (TEDx animation is where I remember this from).
And they held this view and wrote about it mere months before abolition laws were to be passed. Social change can happen faster than people predict it possible.
I think reactions to this this 2020 comment by @Gregory Lewisđž â which criticises Wayne Hsiung for his proposal to disrupt EAG SF 2015 over their decision to serve animals at the conference â is evidence of the way in which Benjamin Lay would have been treated by EAs.
Iâm sympathetic to both sides here.
On the one hand, your communityâs cohesiveness will be undermined if you donât punish people who deliberately and provactively violate your community norms and polarise your community in the pursuit of political goals. Iâm inclined to think that EAs talking about upholding norms like âhelpfulness, honesty, compromise, and friendlinessâ is more about protecting the EA community than actually being the best way to maximise the good with a given unit of resources, even in the long term.
On the other, I think disruptive and norm-breaking tactics like those deployed by Lay and Hsiung are a) justified under many circumstances and b) necessary for effecting social change. And I worry some EAs are too quick to dismiss radicals like Lay and Hsiung for reasons that are more aesthetic than anything else.
I think this is the comment youâre thinking of: https://ââforum.effectivealtruism.org/ââposts/ââjAfhxWSzsw4pLypRt/ââwhere-i-am-donating-in-2024?commentId=y6evejGaj4TMApozC
Yea thatâs the one thanx. I notice I could have found that by going to âSaved & Readâ and then âVote Historyâ which was a bit hidden so didnât know to go there.
Would be great if I could filter the Vote History page to only see comments I have reacted to in a particular way
E.g. I go there and filter to only show comments I have âhelpfulâ reacted to would make finding Scottâs comment a lot easier in the future when this comment otherwise become buried under years of other comments.
In fact, most useful would be to be able to filter by âChanged my mindâ reactions.
(Paging @Sarah Cheng with this feature request)