Peter Wildeford comments on On ‘Why Global Poverty?’ and Arguments from Unobservable Impacts

[Peter Wildeford]

You can rephrase LW jargon with what the jargon represents (in LW jargon, “replace the symbol with the substance”):

For one example, instead of saying:

I’m not that familiar with the EA community, but I predict that debates about cause prioritization, especially when existential risk mitigation is among the causes being discussed, can become mind-killed extremely quickly. And I don’t mean to convey that in the tone of a wise outsider. It makes sense, considering the stakes at hand and the eschatological undertones of existential risk. (That is to say that the phrase ‘save the world’ can be sobering or gross, depending on the individual.) So, as is always implicit, but is sometimes worth making explicit, I’m criticizing some arguments as I understand them, not any person. I write this precisely because rationality is a common interest of many causes. I’ll be focusing on the part about existential risk, as well as the parts that it is dependent upon. Lastly, I’d be interested in knowing if anyone else has criticized this speech in writing or come to conclusions similar to mine. Without further ado:

Say:

I’m not that familiar with the EA community, but I predict that debates about cause prioritization, especially when existential risk mitigation is among the causes being discussed, can become the kinds of conversations where biases make it too hard to have a discussion based just on the facts. And I don’t mean to convey that in the tone of someone outside the EA movement trying to appear smart. It makes sense, considering the stakes at hand and the connections between existential risk and weird beliefs of “life after death”. (That is to say that the phrase ‘save the world’ can be sobering or gross, depending on the individual.) So, as is always implicit, but is sometimes worth making explicit, I’m criticizing some arguments as I understand them, not any person. I write this precisely because having more rationality is important for advancing every EA cause. I’ll be focusing on the part about existential risk, as well as the parts that it is dependent upon. Lastly, I’d be interested in knowing if anyone else has criticized this speech in writing or come to conclusions similar to mine. Without further ado: