On one hand, basically all the smart EA people I trust seem to be into longtermism; it seems well-argued and I feel a vague obligation to join in too.
On the other, the argument for near-term evidence-based interventions like AMF is what got me (and apparently, the speaker) into EA in the first place. It’s definitely a much easier pitch to friends and family, compared to this really weird meta cause whose impact at the end of the day I still don’t really understand. To me, the ability to explain a concept to a layperson serves as a litmus test to how well I understand the concept myself.
Maybe I’ll stay on this side of the kiddy pool, encouraging spectators to dip their toes in and see what the water is like, while the more epistemologically intrepid go off and navigate the deep oceans...
But if, as this talk suggests, it’s not obvious whether donating to near term interventions is good or bad for the world, why are you interested in whether you can pitch friends and family to donate to them?
My rough framing of “why pitch friends and family on donating” is that donating is a credible commitment towards altruism. It’s really easy to get people to say “yeah, helping people is a good idea” but really hard to turn that into something actionable.
Even granting that the long term and thus actual impact of AMF is uncertain, I feel like the transition from “typical altruistic leaning person” to “EA giver” is much more feasible, and sets up “EA giver” to “Longtermist”. Once someone is already donating 10% of their income to one effective charity, it seems easier to make a case like the one OP outlined here.
I guess one thing that would change my mind: do you know people who did jump straight into longtermism?
I totally understand this motivation and I’m currently doing the same.
I’m a little worried that it’s hard to do this with integrity though. Maybe if you are careful with what you say (e.g. “Cheapest way to save a life” rather than “Most effective way to do good”) you can get away without lying, but if you really believe the arguments in the talk it still starts to feel like dangerous territory to me.
On one hand, basically all the smart EA people I trust seem to be into longtermism; it seems well-argued and I feel a vague obligation to join in too.
On the other, the argument for near-term evidence-based interventions like AMF is what got me (and apparently, the speaker) into EA in the first place. It’s definitely a much easier pitch to friends and family, compared to this really weird meta cause whose impact at the end of the day I still don’t really understand. To me, the ability to explain a concept to a layperson serves as a litmus test to how well I understand the concept myself.
Maybe I’ll stay on this side of the kiddy pool, encouraging spectators to dip their toes in and see what the water is like, while the more epistemologically intrepid go off and navigate the deep oceans...
But if, as this talk suggests, it’s not obvious whether donating to near term interventions is good or bad for the world, why are you interested in whether you can pitch friends and family to donate to them?
My rough framing of “why pitch friends and family on donating” is that donating is a credible commitment towards altruism. It’s really easy to get people to say “yeah, helping people is a good idea” but really hard to turn that into something actionable.
Even granting that the long term and thus actual impact of AMF is uncertain, I feel like the transition from “typical altruistic leaning person” to “EA giver” is much more feasible, and sets up “EA giver” to “Longtermist”. Once someone is already donating 10% of their income to one effective charity, it seems easier to make a case like the one OP outlined here.
I guess one thing that would change my mind: do you know people who did jump straight into longtermism?
I totally understand this motivation and I’m currently doing the same.
I’m a little worried that it’s hard to do this with integrity though. Maybe if you are careful with what you say (e.g. “Cheapest way to save a life” rather than “Most effective way to do good”) you can get away without lying, but if you really believe the arguments in the talk it still starts to feel like dangerous territory to me.