Oh, so you’re saying Simon Institute will initially focus on both building up capacity, connections, credibility, etc., and doing some highly targeted advocacy for specific recommendations?
Or is it like you plan to build up capacity, connections, credibility, etc., then do highly targeted advocacy, then maybe do public advocacy?
It’s all somewhat mixed up—highly targeted advocacy is a great way to build up capacity because you get to identify close allies, can do small-scale testing without too much risk, join more exclusive networks because you’re directly endorsed by “other trusted actor x*, etc.
Our targeted advocacy will remain general for now—as in “the long-term future matters much more than we are currently accounting for” and “global catastrophic threats are grossly neglected”. With increasing experience and clout, it will likely become more concrete.
Until then, we think advocating for specific recommendations at the process level, i.e. offering decision-making support, is a great middle way that preserves option value. We are about something very tangible, have more of a pre-existing knowledge base to work with, do not run into conflicts of interest and can incrementally narrow down the most promising pathways for more longtermist advocacy.
Regarding public advocacy: given that we interact mostly with international civil servants, there aren’t any voting constituencies to mobilize. If we take ‘public advocacy’ to include outreach to a larger set of actors—NGOs, think tanks, diplomatic missions, staff unions and academics—then yes, we have considered targeted media campaigns. That could be impactful in reframing issues/solutions and redirecting attention once we’re confident about context-appropriate messaging.
Regarding public advocacy: given that we interact mostly with international civil servants, there aren’t any voting constituencies to mobilize.
Wouldn’t Members of European Parliament also be in a position to support/block longtermism-relevant policy changes? And wouldn’t that mean the voting constituencies for MEPs are relevant?
Caveats:
Obviously this is just for the EU, not other bodies like the UN.
I know very little about how the EU actually works, so maybe the answer to either/both of those questions is “No.”
And my impression is that a large portion of British people at least didn’t know that MEPs existed or that they could vote for them, so maybe most of the public in other EU countries will also in practice pay very little attention?
Also, even for e.g. delegates at the UN, it seems like they’re influenced by the governments of their countries, who are in turn influenced by voters. Obviously this indirectness (and the—probably related—fact that most voters pay very little attention to the UN) reduces how important voters’ views are to UN decisions, but it still seems like voters can matter?
(As one example, I think I’ve heard of cases where voters’ views seemed to make a difference to countries’ stances on international nuclear weapons treaties, which seems like a related thing. But currently my understanding of these areas is limited, so I may be mixing things together in a naive way.)
Oh, so you’re saying Simon Institute will initially focus on both building up capacity, connections, credibility, etc., and doing some highly targeted advocacy for specific recommendations?
Or is it like you plan to build up capacity, connections, credibility, etc., then do highly targeted advocacy, then maybe do public advocacy?
It’s all somewhat mixed up—highly targeted advocacy is a great way to build up capacity because you get to identify close allies, can do small-scale testing without too much risk, join more exclusive networks because you’re directly endorsed by “other trusted actor x*, etc.
Our targeted advocacy will remain general for now—as in “the long-term future matters much more than we are currently accounting for” and “global catastrophic threats are grossly neglected”. With increasing experience and clout, it will likely become more concrete.
Until then, we think advocating for specific recommendations at the process level, i.e. offering decision-making support, is a great middle way that preserves option value. We are about something very tangible, have more of a pre-existing knowledge base to work with, do not run into conflicts of interest and can incrementally narrow down the most promising pathways for more longtermist advocacy.
Regarding public advocacy: given that we interact mostly with international civil servants, there aren’t any voting constituencies to mobilize. If we take ‘public advocacy’ to include outreach to a larger set of actors—NGOs, think tanks, diplomatic missions, staff unions and academics—then yes, we have considered targeted media campaigns. That could be impactful in reframing issues/solutions and redirecting attention once we’re confident about context-appropriate messaging.
Thanks, that all sounds reasonable to me.
Wouldn’t Members of European Parliament also be in a position to support/block longtermism-relevant policy changes? And wouldn’t that mean the voting constituencies for MEPs are relevant?
Caveats:
Obviously this is just for the EU, not other bodies like the UN.
I know very little about how the EU actually works, so maybe the answer to either/both of those questions is “No.”
And my impression is that a large portion of British people at least didn’t know that MEPs existed or that they could vote for them, so maybe most of the public in other EU countries will also in practice pay very little attention?
Also, even for e.g. delegates at the UN, it seems like they’re influenced by the governments of their countries, who are in turn influenced by voters. Obviously this indirectness (and the—probably related—fact that most voters pay very little attention to the UN) reduces how important voters’ views are to UN decisions, but it still seems like voters can matter?
(As one example, I think I’ve heard of cases where voters’ views seemed to make a difference to countries’ stances on international nuclear weapons treaties, which seems like a related thing. But currently my understanding of these areas is limited, so I may be mixing things together in a naive way.)