Thanks for checking Aaron! I’ve been meaning to update this thread.
1a) I came very close to publishing this in November, but realised it needed a lot more work to be readable and ended up splitting the post into 3 to make it more readable. I’ve been prioritising other projects, aim to publish by April 2020.
1b) I have a bunch of interesting papers collected but haven’t made progress yet. Will likely start after 1a)
I wrote and never published this because:
I think it was too generalized and overly simplistic
I think some of the things I wrote were likely wrong/inaccurate
Helped me clarify my own theories of movement building
Ended up witing a few other posts to explain some of my assumptions
I’ve shared it with others trying to answer these questions
3a) This became a much more ambitious and comprehensive volunteer project, but it also means that progress has been slow and incremental. I plan on writing a post about how the project failed and lessons learnt (but I’m experimenting with some new ways to make progress on this and want to see the results first).
b) This post is written, but i didn’t see the value of posting another call for climate change on the forum since, as with 2), I updated towards doing direct work to make progress on this space. (I’d be curious to hear if you think there’s still value in posting such a post)
I created an (almost) comprehensive Effective Environmentalism Resources page. Some of us are now working on a more user-friendly introductory resource for non-EAs.
My two cents: I can understand why you’d want to not post 2, if you believe it had those issues. But it seems like, if 3b is already written, it might as well be posted, unless you think it’s fundamentally mistaken. If you just think that EA climate change research is a less valuable approach than you used to, then maybe you could slap some extra caveats and updates at the top. It could still potentially serve as some useful thoughts for people who do pursue that approach, or serve as an explanation of why you think that approach isn’t that valuable, or that sort of thing.
I’m not personally very focused on climate change, and don’t think I’d personally read the post. But I have a general sense that posts that are just “maybe not very novel or useful” still might as well be posted, once the effort has gone into writing them. It seems like they may at least be appreciated in some way by some niche audience, or suggest to others that that topic isn’t worth them writing about. And worst case scenario is usually just they don’t get read much, or slightly waste a few people’s time.
This doesn’t apply to posts that are so incorrect they’d leave people with worse beliefs, or posts that pose information hazards, but it didn’t sound like you thought those things were true of 3b?
(in no particular order)
1. The application of social movement theory to EA group building
a. The tensions between a member-organising movement (grassroots) and a centrally organised (top down) movement (early draft)
b. historical case studies of movement building to learn from (brainstorming—environmental movement)
2. Ideas to improve the presence of EA in developing countries and non-EA Hubs (editing stage)
3. Climate Change and EA
a. A research agenda for EA and climate change (early draft)
b. How to make room for climate change research in the EA movement (editing stage)
4. Career Change Resources in the EA Community Research project (research stage)
Wow, they all sound so fascinating!
Checking back on this thread now that everyone’s spending more time cooped up inside :-/
Have you made progress on any of these ideas? I’d be happy to help!
Thanks for checking Aaron! I’ve been meaning to update this thread.
1a) I came very close to publishing this in November, but realised it needed a lot more work to be readable and ended up splitting the post into 3 to make it more readable. I’ve been prioritising other projects, aim to publish by April 2020. 1b) I have a bunch of interesting papers collected but haven’t made progress yet. Will likely start after 1a)
I wrote and never published this because:
I think it was too generalized and overly simplistic
I think some of the things I wrote were likely wrong/inaccurate
I felt the most effective way to help developing EA presence was assisting existing projects and direct work.
Why writing the post was still valuable:
Helped me clarify my own theories of movement building
Ended up witing a few other posts to explain some of my assumptions
I’ve shared it with others trying to answer these questions
3a) This became a much more ambitious and comprehensive volunteer project, but it also means that progress has been slow and incremental. I plan on writing a post about how the project failed and lessons learnt (but I’m experimenting with some new ways to make progress on this and want to see the results first).
b) This post is written, but i didn’t see the value of posting another call for climate change on the forum since, as with 2), I updated towards doing direct work to make progress on this space. (I’d be curious to hear if you think there’s still value in posting such a post)
We now have an Effective Environmentalism directory and have started weekly calls on different EE related topics on facebook. Would be curious to hear your thoughts on this.
I created an (almost) comprehensive Effective Environmentalism Resources page. Some of us are now working on a more user-friendly introductory resource for non-EAs.
My two cents: I can understand why you’d want to not post 2, if you believe it had those issues. But it seems like, if 3b is already written, it might as well be posted, unless you think it’s fundamentally mistaken. If you just think that EA climate change research is a less valuable approach than you used to, then maybe you could slap some extra caveats and updates at the top. It could still potentially serve as some useful thoughts for people who do pursue that approach, or serve as an explanation of why you think that approach isn’t that valuable, or that sort of thing.
I’m not personally very focused on climate change, and don’t think I’d personally read the post. But I have a general sense that posts that are just “maybe not very novel or useful” still might as well be posted, once the effort has gone into writing them. It seems like they may at least be appreciated in some way by some niche audience, or suggest to others that that topic isn’t worth them writing about. And worst case scenario is usually just they don’t get read much, or slightly waste a few people’s time.
This doesn’t apply to posts that are so incorrect they’d leave people with worse beliefs, or posts that pose information hazards, but it didn’t sound like you thought those things were true of 3b?
I’m looking forward to 3a and 3b!
See also:
Climate change, geoengineering, and existential risk
Climate Change Is, In General, Not An Existential Risk
Founders Pledge report on climate change