I think the ‘existential risks’ category is too broad and some of the things included are dubious. Recommender systems as existential risk? Autonomous weapons? Ideological engineering?
Finally, I think the categorization of political issues should be heavily reworked, for various reasons. This kind of categorization is much more interpretable and sensible:
Note that a categorization scheme which distinguishes between the two doesn’t have to take a position on their value. But I do want the categorization scheme to distinguish between the two clusters because I later want to be able to argue that one of them is ~worthless, or at least very unpromising.
Simultaneously, I think that other political endeavors have been tainted by association to more “pulling the rope harder” kind of political proposals, and making the distinction explicitly makes it more apparent that other kinds of political interventions might be very promising.
Your proposed categorization seems to me to have the potential to obfuscate the difference between topics which are heavily politicized among US partisan lines, and those which are not. For example, I don’t like putting electoral reform (i.e., using more approval voting, which would benefit candidates near the center with broad appeal) and statehood for Puerto Rico (which would favor Democrats) in the same category.
I’ll think a little bit about how and whether to distinguish between raw categorization schemes (which should presumably be “neutral”) and judgment values or discussions (which should presumably be separate). One option would be to have, say, a neutral third party (e.g. Aaron Gertler) choose the categorization scheme.
Lastly, I wanted to say that although it seems we have strong differences of opinion on this particular topic, I appreciate some of your high quality past work, like Extinguishing or preventing coal seam fires is a potential cause area, Love seems like a high priority, the review of space exploration which you linked, your overview of autonomous weapons, and your various posts on the meat eater problem.
[^1]: Vote pairing would be in the middle, because it could be used both to trade Democrat ⇔ third party candidates and Republican ⇔ third party candidates, with third party candidates being the ones that benefit the most (which sounds plausibly good). In practice, I have the impression that exchanges have mostly been set-up for Democrat ⇔ third party trades, but if they gain more prominence I’d imagine that Republicans would invest more in their own setups.
Thanks for the comments. Let me clarify about the terminology. What I mean is that there are two kinds of “pulling the rope harder”. As I argue here:
The appropriate mindset for political engagement is described in the book Politics Is for Power, which is summarized in this podcast. We need to move past political hobbyism and make real change. Don’t spend so much time reading and sharing things online, following the news and fomenting outrage as a pastime. Prioritize the acquisition of power over clever dunking and purity politics. See yourself as an insider and an agent of change, not an outsider. Instead of simply blaming other people and systems for problems, think first about your own ability to make productive changes in your local environment. Get to know people and build effective political organizations. Implement a long-term political vision.
A key aspect of this is that we cannot be fixated on culture wars. Complaining about the media or SJWs or video game streamers may be emotionally gratifying in the short run but it does nothing to fix the problems with our political system (and it usually doesn’t fix the problems with media and SJWs and video game streamers either). It can also drain your time and emotional energy, and it can stir up needless friction with people who agree with you on political policy but disagree on subtle cultural issues. Instead, focus on political power.
To illustrate the point, the person who came up with the idea of ‘pulling the rope sideways’, Robin Hanson, does indeed refrain from commenting on election choices and most areas of significant public policy, but has nonetheless been quite willing to state opinions on culture war topics like political correctness in academia, sexual inequality, race reparations, and so on.
I think that most people who hear ‘culture wars’ think of the purity politics and dunking and controversies, but not stuff like voting or showing up to neighborhood zoning meetings.
So even if you keep the same categorization, just change the terminology so it doesn’t conflate those who are focused on serious (albeit controversial) questions of policy and power with those who are culture warring.
Added the Space Exploration Review. Great post, btw, of the kind I’d like to see more of for other speculative or early stage cause candidates.
I agree that the existential risks category is too broad, and that I was probably conflating it with dangers from technological development. Will disambiguate
You could add this post of mine to space colonization: An Informal Review of Space Exploration—EA Forum (effectivealtruism.org).
I think the ‘existential risks’ category is too broad and some of the things included are dubious. Recommender systems as existential risk? Autonomous weapons? Ideological engineering?
Finally, I think the categorization of political issues should be heavily reworked, for various reasons. This kind of categorization is much more interpretable and sensible:
Electoral politics
Helping the Democratic Party (USA)
Vote pairing
...
Domestic policy
Housing liberalization
Expanding immigration
Capitalism
...
Political systems
Electoral reform
Statehood for Puerto Rico
...
Foreign policy and international relations
Great power competition
Nuclear arms control
Small wars
Democracy promotion
Self-determination
...
I wouldn’t use the term ‘culture war’ here, it means something different than ‘electoral politics’.
I agree that the categorization scheme for politics isn’t that great. But I also think that there is an important different between “pulling one side of the rope harder” (currently under “culture war”, say, putting more resources into the US Senate races in Georgia) and “pulling the rope sideways”, say Getting money out of politics and into charity [^1].
Note that a categorization scheme which distinguishes between the two doesn’t have to take a position on their value. But I do want the categorization scheme to distinguish between the two clusters because I later want to be able to argue that one of them is ~worthless, or at least very unpromising.
Simultaneously, I think that other political endeavors have been tainted by association to more “pulling the rope harder” kind of political proposals, and making the distinction explicitly makes it more apparent that other kinds of political interventions might be very promising.
Your proposed categorization seems to me to have the potential to obfuscate the difference between topics which are heavily politicized among US partisan lines, and those which are not. For example, I don’t like putting electoral reform (i.e., using more approval voting, which would benefit candidates near the center with broad appeal) and statehood for Puerto Rico (which would favor Democrats) in the same category.
I’ll think a little bit about how and whether to distinguish between raw categorization schemes (which should presumably be “neutral”) and judgment values or discussions (which should presumably be separate). One option would be to have, say, a neutral third party (e.g. Aaron Gertler) choose the categorization scheme.
Lastly, I wanted to say that although it seems we have strong differences of opinion on this particular topic, I appreciate some of your high quality past work, like Extinguishing or preventing coal seam fires is a potential cause area, Love seems like a high priority, the review of space exploration which you linked, your overview of autonomous weapons, and your various posts on the meat eater problem.
[^1]: Vote pairing would be in the middle, because it could be used both to trade Democrat ⇔ third party candidates and Republican ⇔ third party candidates, with third party candidates being the ones that benefit the most (which sounds plausibly good). In practice, I have the impression that exchanges have mostly been set-up for Democrat ⇔ third party trades, but if they gain more prominence I’d imagine that Republicans would invest more in their own setups.
Thanks for the comments. Let me clarify about the terminology. What I mean is that there are two kinds of “pulling the rope harder”. As I argue here:
To illustrate the point, the person who came up with the idea of ‘pulling the rope sideways’, Robin Hanson, does indeed refrain from commenting on election choices and most areas of significant public policy, but has nonetheless been quite willing to state opinions on culture war topics like political correctness in academia, sexual inequality, race reparations, and so on.
I think that most people who hear ‘culture wars’ think of the purity politics and dunking and controversies, but not stuff like voting or showing up to neighborhood zoning meetings.
So even if you keep the same categorization, just change the terminology so it doesn’t conflate those who are focused on serious (albeit controversial) questions of policy and power with those who are culture warring.
Fair enough; I’ve changed this to “Ideological politics” pending further changes.
Added the Space Exploration Review. Great post, btw, of the kind I’d like to see more of for other speculative or early stage cause candidates.
I agree that the existential risks category is too broad, and that I was probably conflating it with dangers from technological development. Will disambiguate