When I was writing this post, I meant to define cosmopolitanism as something that does not take a position either way on nonhumans or future generations. Two reasons for this:
My goal was to increase self-awareness about concern for people in other countries being a distinctive feature of effective altruism. Whereas people who are especially concerned about animals or future generations tend to already be pretty self-aware that not everyone shares their position.
As Robert Wiblin noted in his summit talk, the effective altruism community does have a few people who dissent from the majority view on animals and the far future. Whereas I literally don’t know of anyone who disagrees about cosmopolitanism regarding humans.
That’s fair. Though in that case I’d have liked to have seen some explicit contrast with these other questions (if only to say that you didn’t mean that, so that readers didn’t immediately start thinking on those lines).
When I was writing this post, I meant to define cosmopolitanism as something that does not take a position either way on nonhumans or future generations. Two reasons for this:
My goal was to increase self-awareness about concern for people in other countries being a distinctive feature of effective altruism. Whereas people who are especially concerned about animals or future generations tend to already be pretty self-aware that not everyone shares their position.
As Robert Wiblin noted in his summit talk, the effective altruism community does have a few people who dissent from the majority view on animals and the far future. Whereas I literally don’t know of anyone who disagrees about cosmopolitanism regarding humans.
That’s fair. Though in that case I’d have liked to have seen some explicit contrast with these other questions (if only to say that you didn’t mean that, so that readers didn’t immediately start thinking on those lines).