EA has always acknowledged that the specific choice of activities, charities, etc is contingent upon social and scientific realities. So it’s implicitly clear that our activities can change as we grow.
EA activities have historically changed over time. EA growth itself is much less prioritized now than it was a few years ago. The importance of money, funding, and earning to give has changed over time. There have been several posts about this over the years—“funding constrained” might a good keyword to search for.
I think the core mission of doing the most good has always stayed the same and probably always will. The cause areas EA most focuses on has changed to some extent over the years. Most importantly, longtermism and far future concerns have become more prominent over time in EA orgs and prominent EAs, but much less so among more casual EAs.
80000 Hours is perhaps the most prominent example of an organization whose activities, thinking, and priorities have changed over time. Some of this should be visible from reading some of their older content.
Is there a particular article or statement from an organization that made you think influencing legislation isn’t one of the movement’s aims?
In the last year or two, there’s been a lot more focus within EA on influencing policy, at least in areas thought to be especially impactful. It’s helped that some organizations within the movement have gradually become more experienced and credible, with more connections in the political sphere. I don’t see any reason that this focus wouldn’t continue to increase as we build our ability to succeed in this area.
As far as “grow the movement more”, that’s a tough question, and it’s been the subject of debate for many years. Growth has many obvious upsides, but also some downsides. For example, if many new people join, it can be hard to transmit ideas in a high-fidelity way, and EA’s focus/philosophy may drift as a result. Also, somepeople have argued that EA organizations currently struggle to provide enough resources/opportunities to current community members; adding a lot of new people without being selective might not let us actually give these people very much to do.
Is there a particular article or statement from an organization that made you think influencing legislation isn’t one of the movement’s aims?
I suppose from what I’ve read I get the sense it’s mainly about careers and philanthropy rather than lobbying/activism, though that may be a case of what you later describe. Also @anonymous_EA ’s post does suggest this idea:
EA growth itself is much less prioritized now than it was a few years ago.
Thanks for your time, I’ll look into the influencing policy stuff.
Thanks :)
Do we acknowledge our activities will change as we grow? Are we transparent about our mission?
EA has always acknowledged that the specific choice of activities, charities, etc is contingent upon social and scientific realities. So it’s implicitly clear that our activities can change as we grow.
There aren’t monolithic answers to these questions.
EA is a broad coalition of individuals & organizations; different folks have different worldviews, missions, and communication preferences.
EA activities have historically changed over time. EA growth itself is much less prioritized now than it was a few years ago. The importance of money, funding, and earning to give has changed over time. There have been several posts about this over the years—“funding constrained” might a good keyword to search for.
I think the core mission of doing the most good has always stayed the same and probably always will. The cause areas EA most focuses on has changed to some extent over the years. Most importantly, longtermism and far future concerns have become more prominent over time in EA orgs and prominent EAs, but much less so among more casual EAs.
80000 Hours is perhaps the most prominent example of an organization whose activities, thinking, and priorities have changed over time. Some of this should be visible from reading some of their older content.
I suppose I don’t understand why the aim isn’t to grow the movement more to eventually influence legislation.
Likewise if that will one day be the aim at what point will the switch come?
Is there a particular article or statement from an organization that made you think influencing legislation isn’t one of the movement’s aims?
In the last year or two, there’s been a lot more focus within EA on influencing policy, at least in areas thought to be especially impactful. It’s helped that some organizations within the movement have gradually become more experienced and credible, with more connections in the political sphere. I don’t see any reason that this focus wouldn’t continue to increase as we build our ability to succeed in this area.
As far as “grow the movement more”, that’s a tough question, and it’s been the subject of debate for many years. Growth has many obvious upsides, but also some downsides. For example, if many new people join, it can be hard to transmit ideas in a high-fidelity way, and EA’s focus/philosophy may drift as a result. Also, some people have argued that EA organizations currently struggle to provide enough resources/opportunities to current community members; adding a lot of new people without being selective might not let us actually give these people very much to do.
(I work for CEA, but these views are my own.)
I suppose from what I’ve read I get the sense it’s mainly about careers and philanthropy rather than lobbying/activism, though that may be a case of what you later describe. Also @anonymous_EA ’s post does suggest this idea:
Thanks for your time, I’ll look into the influencing policy stuff.