Sadly, it looks like the debate week will end without many of the stronger arguments[1] for Global Health being raised, at least at the post level.
Defined roughly as âthe points Iâm most likely to hear and give most weight to when discussing this with longtime EAs in personâ.
I had some hope that the week would help me on this issue. Maybe the comments will, otherwise âsee you next timeâ I guess?
Sorry to distract from the object level a bit, but I had a reaction to the parts I quoted above as feeling pretty unfriendly and indirectly disparaging to the things other people have written on the forum.
I realise that you said (to paraphrase) âthere are many strong arguments that were not raisedâ, and not âthe arguments that were raised were not strongâ. Maybe you meant that there had been good arguments already, but more were missing. (Maybe you meant not enough had been posted about GH at all.) But I donât think itâs too surprising that I felt the second thing in the air, even if you didnât say it, and I imagine that if I had written a pro-GH argument in the last week, I might feel kind of attacked.
Yeah I think thereâs something to this, and I did redraft this particular point a few times as I was writing it for reasons in this vicinity. I was reluctant to remove it entirely, but it was close and I wonât be surprised if I feel like it was the wrong call in hindsight. Itâs the type of thing I expect I would have found a kinder framing for given more time.
Having failed to find a kinder framing, one reason I went ahead anyway is that I mostly expect the other post-level pro-GH people to feel similarly.
I agree with @AGB đ¸. I think there was only one seriously pro GH article from @Henry Howardđ¸ (which I really appreciated), and a couple of very moderate push backs that could hardly be called strong arguments for GH (including mine). On the other hand there were almost 10 very pro animal-welfare articles.
Sorry to distract from the object level a bit, but I had a reaction to the parts I quoted above as feeling pretty unfriendly and indirectly disparaging to the things other people have written on the forum.
I realise that you said (to paraphrase) âthere are many strong arguments that were not raisedâ, and not âthe arguments that were raised were not strongâ. Maybe you meant that there had been good arguments already, but more were missing. (Maybe you meant not enough had been posted about GH at all.) But I donât think itâs too surprising that I felt the second thing in the air, even if you didnât say it, and I imagine that if I had written a pro-GH argument in the last week, I might feel kind of attacked.
Yeah I think thereâs something to this, and I did redraft this particular point a few times as I was writing it for reasons in this vicinity. I was reluctant to remove it entirely, but it was close and I wonât be surprised if I feel like it was the wrong call in hindsight. Itâs the type of thing I expect I would have found a kinder framing for given more time.
Having failed to find a kinder framing, one reason I went ahead anyway is that I mostly expect the other post-level pro-GH people to feel similarly.
I agree with @AGB đ¸. I think there was only one seriously pro GH article from @Henry Howardđ¸ (which I really appreciated), and a couple of very moderate push backs that could hardly be called strong arguments for GH (including mine). On the other hand there were almost 10 very pro animal-welfare articles.