To clarify: Iām definitely not recommending āshunningā anyone. I agree it makes perfect sense to continue to refer to particular cause areas (e.g. āglobal health & developmentā) by their descriptive names, and anyone may choose to support them for whatever reasons.
Iām specifically addressing the question of how Open Philanthropy (or other big funders) should think about āWorldview Diversificationā for purposes of having separate funding ābucketsā for different clusters of EA cause areas.
This task does require taking some sort of stand on what āworldviewsā are sufficiently warranted to be worth funding, with real money that could have otherwise been used elsewhere.
Especially for a dominant funder like OP, I think there is great value in legibly communicating its honest beliefs. Based on what it has been funding in GH&D, at least historically, it places great value on saving lives as ~an end unto itself, not as a means of improving long-term human capacity. My understanding is that its usual evaluation metrics in GH&D have reflected that (and historic heavy dependence on GiveWell is clearly based on that). Coming up with some sort of alternative rationale that isnāt the actual rationale doesnāt feel honest, transparent, or . . . well, open.
In the end, Open Phil recommends grants out of Dustin and Cariās large bucket of money. If their donors want to spend X% on saving human lives, it isnāt OPās obligation to backsolve a philosophical rationale for that preference.
Iām suggesting that they should change their honest beliefs. Theyāre at liberty to burn their money too, if they want. But the rest of us are free to try to convince them that they could do better. This is my attempt.
To clarify: Iām definitely not recommending āshunningā anyone. I agree it makes perfect sense to continue to refer to particular cause areas (e.g. āglobal health & developmentā) by their descriptive names, and anyone may choose to support them for whatever reasons.
Iām specifically addressing the question of how Open Philanthropy (or other big funders) should think about āWorldview Diversificationā for purposes of having separate funding ābucketsā for different clusters of EA cause areas.
This task does require taking some sort of stand on what āworldviewsā are sufficiently warranted to be worth funding, with real money that could have otherwise been used elsewhere.
Especially for a dominant funder like OP, I think there is great value in legibly communicating its honest beliefs. Based on what it has been funding in GH&D, at least historically, it places great value on saving lives as ~an end unto itself, not as a means of improving long-term human capacity. My understanding is that its usual evaluation metrics in GH&D have reflected that (and historic heavy dependence on GiveWell is clearly based on that). Coming up with some sort of alternative rationale that isnāt the actual rationale doesnāt feel honest, transparent, or . . . well, open.
In the end, Open Phil recommends grants out of Dustin and Cariās large bucket of money. If their donors want to spend X% on saving human lives, it isnāt OPās obligation to backsolve a philosophical rationale for that preference.
Iām suggesting that they should change their honest beliefs. Theyāre at liberty to burn their money too, if they want. But the rest of us are free to try to convince them that they could do better. This is my attempt.