I donāt regularly see people justifying global poverty interventions based on their flow through effects, and Iād love to see more of this (though, of course, itās very difficult).
Hereās what you might have meant, which Iād endorse: āIād love to see more instances of people trying to work out the flow through effects of global poverty interventions, and making decisions with those flow through effects as a very large factor.ā
But the word ājustifyingā could imply the call here is just for people to keep on their current track, but switch the stated rationale. As you might be suggesting elsewhere, including by referencing Beware surprising and suspicious convergence, it seems plausible that some of this is happening, and that itās not a good thing.
I think if my only choices were for people to keep on their current track for totally non-longtermist reasons or keep on their current track and say or convince themselves that itās for longtermist reasons, Iād choose the former, because then theyāll probably do a better job of what theyāre doing and would be less likely to end up with ābad epistemicsā.
I didnāt want to make any strong claims about which interventions people should end up prioritising, only about which effects they should consider to choose interventions.
(Minor, nit-picky point)
Hereās what you might have meant, which Iād endorse: āIād love to see more instances of people trying to work out the flow through effects of global poverty interventions, and making decisions with those flow through effects as a very large factor.ā
But the word ājustifyingā could imply the call here is just for people to keep on their current track, but switch the stated rationale. As you might be suggesting elsewhere, including by referencing Beware surprising and suspicious convergence, it seems plausible that some of this is happening, and that itās not a good thing.
I think if my only choices were for people to keep on their current track for totally non-longtermist reasons or keep on their current track and say or convince themselves that itās for longtermist reasons, Iād choose the former, because then theyāll probably do a better job of what theyāre doing and would be less likely to end up with ābad epistemicsā.
(See also The Bottom Line.)
Again, nice clarification.
I didnāt want to make any strong claims about which interventions people should end up prioritising, only about which effects they should consider to choose interventions.