While neartermists may be a “small fraction” of the pie of “most energetic/ambitious/competent people,” that pie is a lot larger than it was in the 2000s. And while funding is not a replacement for good people, it is (to a point) a force multiplier for the good people you have. The funding situation would be much better than it was in the 2000s. In any event, I am inclined to think that many neartermists would accept B-list infrastructure if that meant that the infrastructure would put neartermism first -- so I don’t think the infrastructure would have to be as good.
I’m just not sure if there is another way to address some of the challenges the original poster alludes to. For the current meta organizations to start promoting neartermism when they believe it is significantly less effective would be unhealthy from an epistemic standpoint. Taking the steps necessary to help neartermism unlock the potential in currently unavailable talent/donor pools I mentioned above would—based on many of the comments on this forum—impair both longtermism’s epistemics and effectiveness. On the other hand, sending the message that neartermist work is second-class work is not going to help with the recruitment or retention of neartermists. It’s not clear to me what neartermism’s growth (or maintenance) pathway is under current circumstances. I think the crux may be that I put a lot of stock in potentially unlocking those pools as a means of creating counterfactual value.
I understand that a split would be sad, although I would view it more as a sign of deep respect in a way—as an honoring of longtermist epistemics and effectiveness by refusing to ask longtermists to compromise them to help neartermism grow. (Yes, some of the reason for the split may have to do with different needs in terms of willingness to accept scandal risk, but that doesn’t mean anyone thinks most longtermists are scandalous.)
While neartermists may be a “small fraction” of the pie of “most energetic/ambitious/competent people,” that pie is a lot larger than it was in the 2000s. And while funding is not a replacement for good people, it is (to a point) a force multiplier for the good people you have. The funding situation would be much better than it was in the 2000s. In any event, I am inclined to think that many neartermists would accept B-list infrastructure if that meant that the infrastructure would put neartermism first -- so I don’t think the infrastructure would have to be as good.
I’m just not sure if there is another way to address some of the challenges the original poster alludes to. For the current meta organizations to start promoting neartermism when they believe it is significantly less effective would be unhealthy from an epistemic standpoint. Taking the steps necessary to help neartermism unlock the potential in currently unavailable talent/donor pools I mentioned above would—based on many of the comments on this forum—impair both longtermism’s epistemics and effectiveness. On the other hand, sending the message that neartermist work is second-class work is not going to help with the recruitment or retention of neartermists. It’s not clear to me what neartermism’s growth (or maintenance) pathway is under current circumstances. I think the crux may be that I put a lot of stock in potentially unlocking those pools as a means of creating counterfactual value.
I understand that a split would be sad, although I would view it more as a sign of deep respect in a way—as an honoring of longtermist epistemics and effectiveness by refusing to ask longtermists to compromise them to help neartermism grow. (Yes, some of the reason for the split may have to do with different needs in terms of willingness to accept scandal risk, but that doesn’t mean anyone thinks most longtermists are scandalous.)