This is a very interesting and provocative idea! Thank you for sharing.
One thought: is it possible that the concern relates to innumeracy / anti-science-thinking rather than (or in addition) to doubts about any specific group (e.g. white men)?
As in: could (part of) the concern be: “Here is a group of (very nerdy?) people trying to force us all to take critical decisions that sometimes seem bizarre, based on complex, abstract, quantitative arguments that only they understand. I’m not sure I trust them or their motives.” ?
IMHO we underestimate just how abstract some of the arguments in favour of longtermism can seem to 99% of the population who have not studied it, and when this is combined with recommendations that seem quite dramatic, it isn’t hard to see why people would express doubt and question the motives.
Remember, we live in a society in which many people think climate-scientists are just inventing climate-change so they can get more power, and in which medical experts trying to use data to recommend strategies to fight covid frequently had the motives questioned.
Is there a chance that, despite all the healthy disagreement within the EA community, to the external world we seem like an echo-chamber, living in an (imaginary?) world in which math and science and logic can justify any position?
I don’t think most people feel that way. People learn to be suspicious when people throw lots of numbers and new ideas at them and then recommend something that doesn’t seem to make sense. They think of suave car salesmen.
If you say “give me $100 and I can save three children by buying them mosquito nets,” that is tangible and simple. If you say “we should devote X% of our GDP to preventing very low-risk scenarios which could cost trillions of lives,” you’ve lost most people. If you then tell them that you want some of their money or resources to be impacted by this, they will question your motives. The specific details of the longtermism argument may not even be relevant to their suspicion.
This is a very interesting and provocative idea! Thank you for sharing.
One thought: is it possible that the concern relates to innumeracy / anti-science-thinking rather than (or in addition) to doubts about any specific group (e.g. white men)?
As in: could (part of) the concern be: “Here is a group of (very nerdy?) people trying to force us all to take critical decisions that sometimes seem bizarre, based on complex, abstract, quantitative arguments that only they understand. I’m not sure I trust them or their motives.” ?
IMHO we underestimate just how abstract some of the arguments in favour of longtermism can seem to 99% of the population who have not studied it, and when this is combined with recommendations that seem quite dramatic, it isn’t hard to see why people would express doubt and question the motives.
Remember, we live in a society in which many people think climate-scientists are just inventing climate-change so they can get more power, and in which medical experts trying to use data to recommend strategies to fight covid frequently had the motives questioned.
Is there a chance that, despite all the healthy disagreement within the EA community, to the external world we seem like an echo-chamber, living in an (imaginary?) world in which math and science and logic can justify any position?
I don’t think most people feel that way. People learn to be suspicious when people throw lots of numbers and new ideas at them and then recommend something that doesn’t seem to make sense. They think of suave car salesmen.
If you say “give me $100 and I can save three children by buying them mosquito nets,” that is tangible and simple. If you say “we should devote X% of our GDP to preventing very low-risk scenarios which could cost trillions of lives,” you’ve lost most people. If you then tell them that you want some of their money or resources to be impacted by this, they will question your motives. The specific details of the longtermism argument may not even be relevant to their suspicion.