I think this idea bears some merit in itself, but it would be a lot more complex in practice I think. Some other replies have covered that and I have nothing useful to add, so I won’t. One thing I would say is that we have to acknowledge that some of the criticism you list is pretty genuine. We aren’t a perfect community and this does impact our activities. Some examples from what Timnit et al discussed on Twitter:
‘EA and longtermism are claimed to be divorced from the lived experience of common people’
The majority of EA’s base is in the world’s ‘elite’ academic centres. This is for obvious reasons in that it is the best bang-for-buck place to find reliable quality of academic talent. However, it also means that EA generally picks from the most priviliged among society. For example a 2014 Cherwell report (bit dated, but relevant) found that the national average of students having to work while they study to support themselves is 57%, 90% of whom work 20+ hours per week. At Oxford University, only 20% of students work and ‘the majority’ according to the report work under 5 hours per week. This is because the students there are generally from much wealthier backgrounds, so fewer are forced to find part-time employment to fund themselves. This may also be due to other factors, such as a lack of work nearby (eg Oxford isn’t a huge city), but this is unlikely to be the main factor. Also, most EA orgs are based in the most expensive places in the UK (London, Oxford, Cambridge) which means that people with more financial runway can afford to take more opportunities. Is this a bad thing? Not in itself. But it does mean that EA’s membership demographic may not reflect the demographic makeup of society at large. It’s a genuine criticism. To be fair, the EA community does try hard to correct this, but it’s just looking at things as they are. When Timnu makes this point, she doesn’t make it baselessly.
EA and longtermism are claimed to follow colonialist lines of thought
An example of this is that influential EA members have in the past published pieces that to the general public are pretty horrifying, and I can’t for the life of me think why people are surprised at backlash. People are like “omg we’re being dragged publicly on Twitter” and you read the Tweet sources and you’re like “well...yeah”.
For example, posing the idea that some humans are more valuable than others. Hot takes like “Hey, maybe disabled people don’t have the same right to be alive as non-disabled people because they’re less useful” are going to generate some aggro. And in my opinion rightly so. Everyone is entitled to freedom of speech, but the community has to accept the blowback from that policy.
I’ve often thought that EA’s lack of centralised reaction to things like this has been a bit of an issue. Like when there were protests against EA regarding some views the public found objectionable, EA just kind of ignored it. But the media didn’t. Then again, creating some kind of EA PR dept could be seen as having something to hide, and EA has always liked a full transparency policy.
You’re right in that it would be useful to say up front “Hey, we’re not perfect, here’s the values we believe in but not all members agree and that’s okay”. But what are those values, and who decides? And would such an intro provide a cooling effect to philosophical thought? Or would it help, considering it matters just as much what people perceive your community to be as it does what your community actually is?
This was a good post, and raises good questions, I apologise if my answer/input isn’t helpful. It’s a good issue to raise because if it ever reaches the point where calling yourself a Longtermist or whatever is career suicide, the philosophy dies—for reasons entirely unrelated to the philosophy itself. It’s worth considering.
I think this idea bears some merit in itself, but it would be a lot more complex in practice I think. Some other replies have covered that and I have nothing useful to add, so I won’t. One thing I would say is that we have to acknowledge that some of the criticism you list is pretty genuine. We aren’t a perfect community and this does impact our activities. Some examples from what Timnit et al discussed on Twitter:
The majority of EA’s base is in the world’s ‘elite’ academic centres. This is for obvious reasons in that it is the best bang-for-buck place to find reliable quality of academic talent. However, it also means that EA generally picks from the most priviliged among society. For example a 2014 Cherwell report (bit dated, but relevant) found that the national average of students having to work while they study to support themselves is 57%, 90% of whom work 20+ hours per week. At Oxford University, only 20% of students work and ‘the majority’ according to the report work under 5 hours per week. This is because the students there are generally from much wealthier backgrounds, so fewer are forced to find part-time employment to fund themselves. This may also be due to other factors, such as a lack of work nearby (eg Oxford isn’t a huge city), but this is unlikely to be the main factor. Also, most EA orgs are based in the most expensive places in the UK (London, Oxford, Cambridge) which means that people with more financial runway can afford to take more opportunities. Is this a bad thing? Not in itself. But it does mean that EA’s membership demographic may not reflect the demographic makeup of society at large. It’s a genuine criticism. To be fair, the EA community does try hard to correct this, but it’s just looking at things as they are. When Timnu makes this point, she doesn’t make it baselessly.
An example of this is that influential EA members have in the past published pieces that to the general public are pretty horrifying, and I can’t for the life of me think why people are surprised at backlash. People are like “omg we’re being dragged publicly on Twitter” and you read the Tweet sources and you’re like “well...yeah”.
For example, posing the idea that some humans are more valuable than others. Hot takes like “Hey, maybe disabled people don’t have the same right to be alive as non-disabled people because they’re less useful” are going to generate some aggro. And in my opinion rightly so. Everyone is entitled to freedom of speech, but the community has to accept the blowback from that policy.
I’ve often thought that EA’s lack of centralised reaction to things like this has been a bit of an issue. Like when there were protests against EA regarding some views the public found objectionable, EA just kind of ignored it. But the media didn’t. Then again, creating some kind of EA PR dept could be seen as having something to hide, and EA has always liked a full transparency policy.
You’re right in that it would be useful to say up front “Hey, we’re not perfect, here’s the values we believe in but not all members agree and that’s okay”. But what are those values, and who decides? And would such an intro provide a cooling effect to philosophical thought? Or would it help, considering it matters just as much what people perceive your community to be as it does what your community actually is?
This was a good post, and raises good questions, I apologise if my answer/input isn’t helpful. It’s a good issue to raise because if it ever reaches the point where calling yourself a Longtermist or whatever is career suicide, the philosophy dies—for reasons entirely unrelated to the philosophy itself. It’s worth considering.