I’m relatively new to EA but I’ve been exposed to EA’s ideas since 2018 (for 6 months+ I’ve been “classmate” of one of the main contributors to a local EA chapter in Swizerland). Since then I’ve regularly come back to think about EAs, recently I’ve be participating on one of the online reading groups of “The precipice”. (hope this helps to frame my level of knowledge, engagement and participation till now).
I might come back to expand but here a first go at the main point/critique to EA, and probably the main reason why I haven’t been more active and engaged. (I’ll go straight to the point given the many scientific arguments brough by the author of the material referenced below)
Assuming longtermism and maximizing the number of human lives and QALYs over the long term are the core of EA I see “shortsighted” to focus most of the work on saving human lives today. While I can see how/why it can increase the engagement and motivation of many people to participate I think this misses a point that is summarized pretty well in this video at minute 0:26. --> in other words “the impossibility of infinite growth on a finite planet”.
My view can be pretty bluntly summarized as: there is no point in saving today human lives and QALY if nothing is done to help society escape the growth trap which is not difficult to correlate to a high risk of increasing the chances of events involving major deaths and loss of QALYs (top of the list are --> food/resources scarcity).
Experimenting, proving and facilitating the conversion of as many people and country systems as possible to non-growth based economies should be absolute priority, also in the short term. Incentivizing people to stay in the current (futureless) system by making them feel they can contribute to the good of the future of humanity (e.g. by donating large part of their income for short term interventions) doesn’t seem rationally optimizing the overall long term good for humanity. I’m tempted to think that helping people to save money to be able to explore alternatives to the current “growth based” system would be potentially more impactful .
And no worries I’m also moved if I stop and think/see the conditions of many poor people in the world. Although I’m even more moved by thinking of how many people live very miserable (very unhappy) and very high resource intensive lives in the west.
My views on EA --> attempt to a constructive criticism
I’m relatively new to EA but I’ve been exposed to EA’s ideas since 2018 (for 6 months+ I’ve been “classmate” of one of the main contributors to a local EA chapter in Swizerland). Since then I’ve regularly come back to think about EAs, recently I’ve be participating on one of the online reading groups of “The precipice”. (hope this helps to frame my level of knowledge, engagement and participation till now).
I might come back to expand but here a first go at the main point/critique to EA, and probably the main reason why I haven’t been more active and engaged. (I’ll go straight to the point given the many scientific arguments brough by the author of the material referenced below)
Assuming longtermism and maximizing the number of human lives and QALYs over the long term are the core of EA I see “shortsighted” to focus most of the work on saving human lives today. While I can see how/why it can increase the engagement and motivation of many people to participate I think this misses a point that is summarized pretty well in this video at minute 0:26. --> in other words “the impossibility of infinite growth on a finite planet”.
My view can be pretty bluntly summarized as: there is no point in saving today human lives and QALY if nothing is done to help society escape the growth trap which is not difficult to correlate to a high risk of increasing the chances of events involving major deaths and loss of QALYs (top of the list are --> food/resources scarcity).
Experimenting, proving and facilitating the conversion of as many people and country systems as possible to non-growth based economies should be absolute priority, also in the short term. Incentivizing people to stay in the current (futureless) system by making them feel they can contribute to the good of the future of humanity (e.g. by donating large part of their income for short term interventions) doesn’t seem rationally optimizing the overall long term good for humanity. I’m tempted to think that helping people to save money to be able to explore alternatives to the current “growth based” system would be potentially more impactful .
And no worries I’m also moved if I stop and think/see the conditions of many poor people in the world. Although I’m even more moved by thinking of how many people live very miserable (very unhappy) and very high resource intensive lives in the west.
Log of changes to the post:
First draft 10/8/2022