The political mobilization you are prematurely demanding to rectify the laundry list of concerns you present is first contingent on individuals like myself being persuaded by the veracity of your claims, which this post makes a lot of, the conjunction of which is exceedingly improbable. It would be easier for me to be persuaded if one concrete opportunity for intervention was first expounded on, such as this pipeline (or whichever is the best specific intervention here), its cost-effectiveness in creating QALYs (or your preferred measure), and how the resulting expected output of our contributions would compare to other potential effective interventions in a similar class of human-concernedness such as ALLFED, AMF, or biosecurity, or even more dissimilar ones like AGI alignment, animal welfare, etc, rather than presenting shock that we do not hold the same inside view on what is literally the most important thing to do with one’s resources.
This recently made guide on introducing new interventions to aspiring effective altruists, if followed, will help achieve that. You can also post any calculations in this group and receive feedback. Effective Environmentalism might interest you as well. :)
The political mobilization you are prematurely demanding to rectify the laundry list of concerns you present is first contingent on individuals like myself being persuaded by the veracity of your claims,
This statement is meaningless. Of course people need to be convinced if you are posting in order to convince them. “I won’t do anything until you convince me” is a trivial statement. With this derogatory wording, it reads like you are just trying to rebuff the OP without actually addressing the post itself.
the conjunction of which is exceedingly improbable
The conjunction of all claims in any post of this length is exceedingly improbable. You could say this about any argument, including the very blog post that you linked, or your own comment. And in most cases, the conjunction of claims does not need to be true for the main point to be made.
It would be easier for me to be persuaded if one concrete opportunity for intervention was first expounded on, such as this pipeline (or whichever is the best specific intervention here), its cost-effectiveness in creating QALYs (or your preferred measure), and how the resulting expected output of our contributions would compare to other potential effective interventions in a similar class of human-concernedness such as ALLFED, AMF, or biosecurity, or even more dissimilar ones like AGI alignment, animal welfare, etc,
It would be easier, but there is a flip side to this, which is that you can’t stop at demanding that everyone who presents you with an argument translate it into the specific language that you best understand.
The political mobilization you are prematurely demanding to rectify the laundry list of concerns you present is first contingent on individuals like myself being persuaded by the veracity of your claims, which this post makes a lot of, the conjunction of which is exceedingly improbable. It would be easier for me to be persuaded if one concrete opportunity for intervention was first expounded on, such as this pipeline (or whichever is the best specific intervention here), its cost-effectiveness in creating QALYs (or your preferred measure), and how the resulting expected output of our contributions would compare to other potential effective interventions in a similar class of human-concernedness such as ALLFED, AMF, or biosecurity, or even more dissimilar ones like AGI alignment, animal welfare, etc, rather than presenting shock that we do not hold the same inside view on what is literally the most important thing to do with one’s resources.
This recently made guide on introducing new interventions to aspiring effective altruists, if followed, will help achieve that. You can also post any calculations in this group and receive feedback. Effective Environmentalism might interest you as well. :)
Thanks for the info!
This statement is meaningless. Of course people need to be convinced if you are posting in order to convince them. “I won’t do anything until you convince me” is a trivial statement. With this derogatory wording, it reads like you are just trying to rebuff the OP without actually addressing the post itself.
The conjunction of all claims in any post of this length is exceedingly improbable. You could say this about any argument, including the very blog post that you linked, or your own comment. And in most cases, the conjunction of claims does not need to be true for the main point to be made.
It would be easier, but there is a flip side to this, which is that you can’t stop at demanding that everyone who presents you with an argument translate it into the specific language that you best understand.