My guess is that people who support AMF, SCI, or GiveDirectly don’t think the negative long-term effects are significant compared to the benefits, compared to “doing nothing”. These do more good than harm under a longtermist framework. Compared to “doing nothing”, they might generally just be skeptical of the causal effects of any interventions primarily targeting growth and all other so far proposed longtermist interventions (the causal evidence is much weaker) or believe these aren’t robustly good because of complex cluelessness.
I focus on animal welfare, and it’s basically the same argument for me.
If I think doing X is robustly better than doing nothing in expectation, and no other action is robustly better than doing X in expectation, then I’m happy to do X. See also my comment here.
My guess is that people who support AMF, SCI, or GiveDirectly don’t think the negative long-term effects are significant compared to the benefits, compared to “doing nothing”. These do more good than harm under a longtermist framework. Compared to “doing nothing”, they might generally just be skeptical of the causal effects of any interventions primarily targeting growth and all other so far proposed longtermist interventions (the causal evidence is much weaker) or believe these aren’t robustly good because of complex cluelessness.
I focus on animal welfare, and it’s basically the same argument for me.
If I think doing X is robustly better than doing nothing in expectation, and no other action is robustly better than doing X in expectation, then I’m happy to do X. See also my comment here.
This is the maximality rule from Maximal Cluelessness by Andreas Mogensen. Publication, GPI page (pdf), EA Forum post.
Nice, thanks