I also believe there are two broad types of EAs today. So this is interesting. Although, I am a little confused on some of your meaning. Can you make some of those into complete sentences?
2) How are these different between Type 1 and Type 2?
4) “Evidence is more direct” in what regard or context??
2) How are these different between Type 1 and Type 2?
To me, it cannot be seriously disputed that improving the lives of currently alive humans is good, that improving the welfare of current and future animals is good, and that preventing the existence of farm animals who would live overall negative lives is good.
By contrast, I think that you can make a plausible argument that there is no moral value to ensuring that a person who would live a happy life comes into existence (though as noted above, you can make the case for reducing global catastrophic risks without relying on that benefit).
4) “Evidence is more direct” in what regard or context??
It’s easier to measure the effectiveness of the program being implemented by a global health charity, the effectiveness of that charity at implementing the program, and the effectiveness of an animal charity at securing corporate pledges than it is to measure the impact of biosecurity and AI alignment organizations.
I also believe there are two broad types of EAs today. So this is interesting. Although, I am a little confused on some of your meaning. Can you make some of those into complete sentences?
2) How are these different between Type 1 and Type 2?
4) “Evidence is more direct” in what regard or context??
Lastly, the list seems skewed, favoring Type 2.
To me, it cannot be seriously disputed that improving the lives of currently alive humans is good, that improving the welfare of current and future animals is good, and that preventing the existence of farm animals who would live overall negative lives is good.
By contrast, I think that you can make a plausible argument that there is no moral value to ensuring that a person who would live a happy life comes into existence (though as noted above, you can make the case for reducing global catastrophic risks without relying on that benefit).
It’s easier to measure the effectiveness of the program being implemented by a global health charity, the effectiveness of that charity at implementing the program, and the effectiveness of an animal charity at securing corporate pledges than it is to measure the impact of biosecurity and AI alignment organizations.