For me, the discussion of impartiality (first day of intro program) and longtermism (which isn’t necessary for many of the suggested action points) were moments of doubt. Also 80k narrowing on transformative AI and alienating people that don’t agree with the worldview.
Somehow I still stuck around.
But I think many of the things EA proposes don’t need people to buy the whole package, and we are missing out on impact by leading with strong philosophical stuff.
I relate to this. Personally I feel more drawn to work on global poverty and animal welfare, which makes the impact more immediately tangible to me.
I can also understand why some people feel a bit confused or alienated when the framing focuses heavily on more abstract or long-term philosophical questions while there is still so much visible suffering in the world today.
I agree that many of the actions EA encourages don’t actually require people to buy into the entire philosophical package, and that we might reach more people if we sometimes led with the concrete problems and solutions.
For me it’s even more that what you say. I was thinking even for most people working on AI or bio risk, the threats usually feel quite real in a scale of decades, and they could be personally affected. The numbers may change, but I think for most people working in EA cause areas, their work is well justified without appealing to impartiality (radical empathy would be enough, and it’s less demanding) or longtermism.
Strongly agree.
For me, the discussion of impartiality (first day of intro program) and longtermism (which isn’t necessary for many of the suggested action points) were moments of doubt. Also 80k narrowing on transformative AI and alienating people that don’t agree with the worldview.
Somehow I still stuck around.
But I think many of the things EA proposes don’t need people to buy the whole package, and we are missing out on impact by leading with strong philosophical stuff.
I relate to this. Personally I feel more drawn to work on global poverty and animal welfare, which makes the impact more immediately tangible to me.
I can also understand why some people feel a bit confused or alienated when the framing focuses heavily on more abstract or long-term philosophical questions while there is still so much visible suffering in the world today.
I agree that many of the actions EA encourages don’t actually require people to buy into the entire philosophical package, and that we might reach more people if we sometimes led with the concrete problems and solutions.
For me it’s even more that what you say. I was thinking even for most people working on AI or bio risk, the threats usually feel quite real in a scale of decades, and they could be personally affected. The numbers may change, but I think for most people working in EA cause areas, their work is well justified without appealing to impartiality (radical empathy would be enough, and it’s less demanding) or longtermism.