On the one hand I agree with this being very likely the most prudent action from OP to take from her perspective, and probably the best action for the world as well. On the other, I think I feel a bit sad to miss some element of...combativeness(?)… in my perhaps overly-nostalgic memories of the earlier EA culture, where people used to be much more aggressive about disagreements with cause and intervention prioritizations.
It feels to me that people are less aggressive about disagreeing with established consensus or strong viewpoints that other EAs have, and are somewhat more “live and let live” about both uses of money and human capital. I sort of agree with this being the natural evolution of our movement’s emphases (longtermism is harder to crisply argue about than global health, money is more liquid/fungible than human capital). But I think I feel some sadness re: the decrease in general combativeness and willingness to viciously argue about causes.
This is related to an earlier post about the EA community becoming a “big tent,” which at the time I didn’t agree with but now I’m warning up to.
I think the key here is that they’ve already spent quite a lot of time investigating the question. I would have a different reaction without that. And it seems like you agree my proposal is best both for the OP and the world, so perhaps the real sadness is about the empirical difficulty at getting people to consensus?
At a minimum I would claim that there should exist some level of effort past which you should not be sad not arguing, and then the remaining question is where the threshold is.
On the one hand I agree with this being very likely the most prudent action from OP to take from her perspective, and probably the best action for the world as well. On the other, I think I feel a bit sad to miss some element of...combativeness(?)… in my perhaps overly-nostalgic memories of the earlier EA culture, where people used to be much more aggressive about disagreements with cause and intervention prioritizations.
It feels to me that people are less aggressive about disagreeing with established consensus or strong viewpoints that other EAs have, and are somewhat more “live and let live” about both uses of money and human capital. I sort of agree with this being the natural evolution of our movement’s emphases (longtermism is harder to crisply argue about than global health, money is more liquid/fungible than human capital). But I think I feel some sadness re: the decrease in general combativeness and willingness to viciously argue about causes.
This is related to an earlier post about the EA community becoming a “big tent,” which at the time I didn’t agree with but now I’m warning up to.
I think the key here is that they’ve already spent quite a lot of time investigating the question. I would have a different reaction without that. And it seems like you agree my proposal is best both for the OP and the world, so perhaps the real sadness is about the empirical difficulty at getting people to consensus?
At a minimum I would claim that there should exist some level of effort past which you should not be sad not arguing, and then the remaining question is where the threshold is.
(I’m happy to die on the hill that that threshold exists, if you want a vicious argument. :))