“Long-run focused effective altruism is often seen as even less common-sense than the short-run focused version.”
I’d say that it is less ‘common sense’ as such, in terms of principles, although I agree that taking into account factors like economic/technological growth and the sustainability of civilization might lead recommending some interventions that are more broadly supported. That would be something of a coincidence, and there may also be very outlandish recommendations..
On the intuitiveness of principles, there are a many factors that separately contribute to people’s intuitions.
A big part of ‘common sense’ for many people is focus on their own communities, and so neglect of physically and socially distant foreigners. Things like nuclear disarmament or scientific research will be less counterintuitive to many rich country citizens because of the visible impact on the welfare of their own communities.
A different but related angle is mutualism: cooperating on Prisoner’s Dilemma, contributing to public goods in a way that benefits everyone, versus one-sided transfers. The costs of cutting carbon emissions, or boosting scientific research, could be allocated around the world such that everyone wins. For transfers and health aid to the poorest the mechanisms for mutual benefit are weaker and harder to implement (although possible). Immigration with taxes and transfers to approach Pareto-improvement may fit in better with the mutualistic framework.
Intuitions about sustainability over time and high average standards of living are more common than linear concern with population size (intrinsically, for a given standard of living and instrumental import).
In some cases these will tend to coincide with a long-run welfare view, and in other cases with a short-run welfare view.
“Long-run focused effective altruism is often seen as even less common-sense than the short-run focused version.”
I’d say that it is less ‘common sense’ as such, in terms of principles, although I agree that taking into account factors like economic/technological growth and the sustainability of civilization might lead recommending some interventions that are more broadly supported. That would be something of a coincidence, and there may also be very outlandish recommendations..
On the intuitiveness of principles, there are a many factors that separately contribute to people’s intuitions.
A big part of ‘common sense’ for many people is focus on their own communities, and so neglect of physically and socially distant foreigners. Things like nuclear disarmament or scientific research will be less counterintuitive to many rich country citizens because of the visible impact on the welfare of their own communities.
A different but related angle is mutualism: cooperating on Prisoner’s Dilemma, contributing to public goods in a way that benefits everyone, versus one-sided transfers. The costs of cutting carbon emissions, or boosting scientific research, could be allocated around the world such that everyone wins. For transfers and health aid to the poorest the mechanisms for mutual benefit are weaker and harder to implement (although possible). Immigration with taxes and transfers to approach Pareto-improvement may fit in better with the mutualistic framework.
Intuitions about sustainability over time and high average standards of living are more common than linear concern with population size (intrinsically, for a given standard of living and instrumental import).
In some cases these will tend to coincide with a long-run welfare view, and in other cases with a short-run welfare view.