I consider “reasonable use” to mean spending a small amount of money on offsets to purchase mental health in the form of not feeling guilty of small harms one might cause, where these offsets are not considered an EA activity, and one who considers themselves a part of EA would be spending more money, time, effort, whatever resource on something they chose for efficiency.
All advocacy for ethical offsets I have seen has been compatible with this reasonable use, and I don’t think anyone is doing the unreasonable thing of calling ethical offsets an EA activity or focusing their EA efforts on them, or saying anyone should do that.
Jeff’s article does not talk about ethical offsets. It says be careful about trading your happiness inefficiently for small gains in general utility, not anything about paying offsets instead.
I could cite sources (I can think of two more that are definitely online and not from private conversation). I am choosing not to because I’m not convinced it’s a helpful exercise.
The fact that you don’t think citing these sources is a helpful exercise is evidence that publicly arguing against them is also not a helpful exercise.
If you don’t think people are interested in vegan offsetting, then why would telling them not to do it matter?
I think people are interested in reasonable offsetting, not offsetting as a primary activity. I think I have been clear about this.
I don’t care very much specifically about vegan offsets. I care a lot about the general category EAs being able to do small sub-optimal things that enable to them to focus more on their more optimal efforts, and to sustain that focus long term.
I consider “reasonable use” to mean spending a small amount of money on offsets to purchase mental health in the form of not feeling guilty of small harms one might cause, where these offsets are not considered an EA activity, and one who considers themselves a part of EA would be spending more money, time, effort, whatever resource on something they chose for efficiency.
All advocacy for ethical offsets I have seen has been compatible with this reasonable use, and I don’t think anyone is doing the unreasonable thing of calling ethical offsets an EA activity or focusing their EA efforts on them, or saying anyone should do that.
Jeff’s article does not talk about ethical offsets. It says be careful about trading your happiness inefficiently for small gains in general utility, not anything about paying offsets instead.
The fact that you don’t think citing these sources is a helpful exercise is evidence that publicly arguing against them is also not a helpful exercise.
I think people are interested in reasonable offsetting, not offsetting as a primary activity. I think I have been clear about this.
I don’t care very much specifically about vegan offsets. I care a lot about the general category EAs being able to do small sub-optimal things that enable to them to focus more on their more optimal efforts, and to sustain that focus long term.
Yes!