Neglectedness is overrated
History shows that major moral victories have often come not from focusing on obscure causes, but from building broad coalitions to tackle obvious wrongs. The abolition of slavery is a prime example. It occurred in the British Empire in 1833 and the U.S. in the 1860s, right at the height of slavery’s profitability. Change did not wait for market readiness or optimal economic timing. The strength of opposition was not decisive against tractability. Change came through mass mobilization, moral conviction, and coalition-building, including alliances like Quakers joining with evangelical Christians. The success wasn’t due to neglectedness, but to sustained collective action against entrenched interests.
Effective altruists should not shy away from these kinds of causes or be contrarian for its own sake. Instead, they should view participation in powerful, morally urgent movements even popular ones as a high-leverage opportunity to shift the trajectory of society
Many such cases
Thanks for posting this. I don’t think the usual view is that “additional effort is wasted” on non-neglected issues. It’s that there is a finite amount of time, money, resources, emotional bandwidth, and other stuff—so the value of additional effort for the non-neglected cause has to be weighed against commiting that effort to a more neglected cause.
Given that, I would be looking to identify why there is solid reason to believe “additional support” of the sort EAs could provide “could meaningfully accelerate impact” in a specific non-neglected cause area. I think there could be situations in which that’s the case, but I don’t think assertions about the possible effects of generalized support on non-neglected causes generally really move the needle for me.