(I hope itâs not confusing that Iâm answering both your comments at once).
While I will have to consider this for longer, my preliminary thought is that I agree with most of what you said. Which means that I might not believe in some of my previous statements.
Thanks for the link to that post. I do agree and I can definitely see how some of these biases have influenced a couple of my thoughts.
--
On your last point, but future-focused WAW interventions, Iâm thinking of things that you mention in the tractability section of your post:...
Okay, I see. Well actually, my initial thought was that all of those four options had a similar impact on the longterm future. Which would justify focusing on short-term interventions and advocacy (which would correspond with working on point number three and four). However after further consideration, I think the first two are of higher impact when considering the far future. Which means I (at least for right now) agree with your earlier statement:
âSo rather than talking about âwild animal welfare interventionsâ, Iâd argue that youâre really only talking about âfuture-focused wild animal welfare interventionsâ. And I think making that distinction is important, because I donât think your reasoning supports present-focused WAW work.â
While I still think the âflow through effectâ is very real for WAW, I do think that itâs probably true working on s-risks more directly might be of higher impact.
--
I was curious if you have some thoughts on these conclusions (concluded based on a number of things you said and my personal values):
Since working on s-risk directly is more impactful than working on it indirectly, direct work should be done when possible.
There is no current organization working purely on animal related s-risk (as far as I know). So if thatâs your main concern, your options are start-up or convincing an âs-risk mitigation organizationâ that you should work on this area full time.
Animal Ethics works on advocating moral circle expansion. But since this is of less direct impact to the longterm future, this has less of an effect on reducing s-risk than more direct work.
If youâre also interested in reducing other s-risks (e.g. artificial sentience), then working for an organization that directly tries to reduce the probability of a number of s-risk is your best option (e.g. Center on Long-Term Risk or Center for Reducing Suffering).
(I hope itâs not confusing that Iâm answering both your comments at once).
While I will have to consider this for longer, my preliminary thought is that I agree with most of what you said. Which means that I might not believe in some of my previous statements.
Thanks for the link to that post. I do agree and I can definitely see how some of these biases have influenced a couple of my thoughts.
--
Okay, I see. Well actually, my initial thought was that all of those four options had a similar impact on the longterm future. Which would justify focusing on short-term interventions and advocacy (which would correspond with working on point number three and four). However after further consideration, I think the first two are of higher impact when considering the far future. Which means I (at least for right now) agree with your earlier statement:
While I still think the âflow through effectâ is very real for WAW, I do think that itâs probably true working on s-risks more directly might be of higher impact.
--
I was curious if you have some thoughts on these conclusions (concluded based on a number of things you said and my personal values):
Since working on s-risk directly is more impactful than working on it indirectly, direct work should be done when possible.
There is no current organization working purely on animal related s-risk (as far as I know). So if thatâs your main concern, your options are start-up or convincing an âs-risk mitigation organizationâ that you should work on this area full time.
Animal Ethics works on advocating moral circle expansion. But since this is of less direct impact to the longterm future, this has less of an effect on reducing s-risk than more direct work.
If youâre also interested in reducing other s-risks (e.g. artificial sentience), then working for an organization that directly tries to reduce the probability of a number of s-risk is your best option (e.g. Center on Long-Term Risk or Center for Reducing Suffering).