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.
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.