I think EA has been taken in too far by “mistake theory”, with the idea that surely everyone values saving lives, they just disagree with each other on how to do it, and if we just explain that PEPFAR saves lives to the right people, they’ll change their minds.
But like… look at the ridiculously hostile replies to this tweet by Scott Alexander. There is an influential section of the Right that is ideologically against any tax money going to help save non-american lives, and this section appears to be currently in charge of the US government. These people cannot be reasoned out of their positions: instead the only path is to rip them away from power and influence. These anti-human policies must be hung over the head of the Republican party, and they must bleed politically for them: so that future politicians are warned away from such cruelty.
this section appears to be currently in charge of the US government
What section do you put Marco Rubio in?
These people cannot be reasoned out of their positions
Not sure hostile tweets are compelling evidence here. Social media participation seems very self-selected. Generally I think hostile tweets represent tails of a bell curve. (Also, most of the replies I’m reading don’t seem overly hostile.)
Search for “Life Effects” in Scott’s survey results. Many readers say they donate more to charity as a result of his blog. His reasonable approach appears to work.
Even if we grant that some people are unpersuadable—If your goal is for Republican poll numbers to go down as a result of the USAID situation, the best advocacy strategy isn’t obvious. For all we know, fire-and-brimstone rhetoric will polarize more people against foreign aid.
Vegans have taken a super-aggressive approach to advocacy for years. My sense is that it works on about 5% of the population, and turns off the remaining 95%.
Progressive activists only make up 8% of the population in the US (they’re just very vocal): https://hiddentribes.us/
“You’re anti-human because you bought yourself a birthday cake instead of donating to malaria nets!” Even EAs don’t use this kind of language with each other. If it doesn’t work for us, why would we expect it to work on the general population?
The side that defied a court order to eliminate 90% of USAID programs this week including all the lifesaving programs described above, with the name Marco Rubio referenced as being the decision-making authority in the termination letters.
I’m not sure the number of statements he’s made in favour of some of these programs being lifesaving before termination letters were sent out in his name is a mitigating factor. And if he’s not actually making the decisions it’s a moot point: appealing to Rubio’s better nature doesn’t seem to be a way forward.
I think EA has been taken in too far by “mistake theory”, with the idea that surely everyone values saving lives, they just disagree with each other on how to do it, and if we just explain that PEPFAR saves lives to the right people, they’ll change their minds.
But like… look at the ridiculously hostile replies to this tweet by Scott Alexander. There is an influential section of the Right that is ideologically against any tax money going to help save non-american lives, and this section appears to be currently in charge of the US government. These people cannot be reasoned out of their positions: instead the only path is to rip them away from power and influence. These anti-human policies must be hung over the head of the Republican party, and they must bleed politically for them: so that future politicians are warned away from such cruelty.
What section do you put Marco Rubio in?
Not sure hostile tweets are compelling evidence here. Social media participation seems very self-selected. Generally I think hostile tweets represent tails of a bell curve. (Also, most of the replies I’m reading don’t seem overly hostile.)
Search for “Life Effects” in Scott’s survey results. Many readers say they donate more to charity as a result of his blog. His reasonable approach appears to work.
Even if we grant that some people are unpersuadable—If your goal is for Republican poll numbers to go down as a result of the USAID situation, the best advocacy strategy isn’t obvious. For all we know, fire-and-brimstone rhetoric will polarize more people against foreign aid.
Vegans have taken a super-aggressive approach to advocacy for years. My sense is that it works on about 5% of the population, and turns off the remaining 95%.
Progressive activists only make up 8% of the population in the US (they’re just very vocal): https://hiddentribes.us/
“You’re anti-human because you bought yourself a birthday cake instead of donating to malaria nets!” Even EAs don’t use this kind of language with each other. If it doesn’t work for us, why would we expect it to work on the general population?
The side that defied a court order to eliminate 90% of USAID programs this week including all the lifesaving programs described above, with the name Marco Rubio referenced as being the decision-making authority in the termination letters.
I’m not sure the number of statements he’s made in favour of some of these programs being lifesaving before termination letters were sent out in his name is a mitigating factor. And if he’s not actually making the decisions it’s a moot point: appealing to Rubio’s better nature doesn’t seem to be a way forward.