I think theyāre important to pay attention to all of the time, and Iām not in the business (in writing this post) of providing reminders about everything thatās important.
Hmm, I donāt think this seems quite right to me.
I think Iāve basically never thought about moral uncertainty or epistemic humility when buying bread or getting a haircut, and I think that thatās been fine.
And I think in writing this post youāre partly in the business of trying to resolve things like ādonors of last resortā issues, and that thatās one of the sorts of situations where explicitly remembering the ideas of moral uncertainty and epistemic humility is especially useful, and where explicitly remembering those ideas is one of the most useful things one can do.
I think itās probably slightly less important to take them into account if you have (implicit or explicit) impact markets
This seems right to me, but I donāt think this really pushes against my suggestion much. I say this because I think the goals here relate to fixing certain problems, like ādonors of last resortā issues, rather than thinking of what side dishes go best with (implicit or explicit) impact markets. So I think what matters is just how much value would be added by reminding people about moral uncertainty and epistemic humility when trying to help resolve those problemsāeven if implicit impact markets would make those reminders less helpful, I still think theyād be among the top 3-10 most helpful things.
(I donāt think Iād say this if we were talking about actual, explicit impact markets; Iām just saying it in relation to implicit impact markets without infrastructure.)
I guess I significantly agree with all of the above, and I do think it would have been reasonable for me to mention these considerations. But since I think the considerations tend to blunt rather than solve the issues, and since I think the audience for my post will mostly be well aware of these considerations, it still feels fine to me to have omitted mention of them? (I mean, Iām glad that theyāve come up in the comments.)
I guess Iām unsure whether thereās an interesting disagreement here.
Yeah, I think Iād agree that itās reasonable to either include or not include explicit mention of those considerations in this post, and that thereās no major disagreement here.
My original comment was not meant as criticism of this post, but rather as an extra ideaālike āMaybe future efforts to move our community closer to having āimplicit impact markets without infrastructureā, or to solve the problems that that solution is aimed at solving, should include explicit mention of those considerations?ā
Hmm, I donāt think this seems quite right to me.
I think Iāve basically never thought about moral uncertainty or epistemic humility when buying bread or getting a haircut, and I think that thatās been fine.
And I think in writing this post youāre partly in the business of trying to resolve things like ādonors of last resortā issues, and that thatās one of the sorts of situations where explicitly remembering the ideas of moral uncertainty and epistemic humility is especially useful, and where explicitly remembering those ideas is one of the most useful things one can do.
This seems right to me, but I donāt think this really pushes against my suggestion much. I say this because I think the goals here relate to fixing certain problems, like ādonors of last resortā issues, rather than thinking of what side dishes go best with (implicit or explicit) impact markets. So I think what matters is just how much value would be added by reminding people about moral uncertainty and epistemic humility when trying to help resolve those problemsāeven if implicit impact markets would make those reminders less helpful, I still think theyād be among the top 3-10 most helpful things.
(I donāt think Iād say this if we were talking about actual, explicit impact markets; Iām just saying it in relation to implicit impact markets without infrastructure.)
I guess I significantly agree with all of the above, and I do think it would have been reasonable for me to mention these considerations. But since I think the considerations tend to blunt rather than solve the issues, and since I think the audience for my post will mostly be well aware of these considerations, it still feels fine to me to have omitted mention of them? (I mean, Iām glad that theyāve come up in the comments.)
I guess Iām unsure whether thereās an interesting disagreement here.
Yeah, I think Iād agree that itās reasonable to either include or not include explicit mention of those considerations in this post, and that thereās no major disagreement here.
My original comment was not meant as criticism of this post, but rather as an extra ideaālike āMaybe future efforts to move our community closer to having āimplicit impact markets without infrastructureā, or to solve the problems that that solution is aimed at solving, should include explicit mention of those considerations?ā