There are a lot of ways in which sexual violence has an impact on effective altruism, so reducing sexual violence will help us reach our effective altruism goals in various different ways. Because it will help us do more effective altruism, and the cost-benefit ratio looks good, I believe that gives it a lot of potential to be an effective altruism cause. It seems like you may not have read the entire impact section. Here is a table of contents for the impact section:
Impact
Estimating the number of sexually violent people.
Why we should not assume that effective altruism repels sex offenders:
About 6% of men are rapists and an unknown percentage of women.
A rough estimate of rapists in EA:
Sexual violence reduction as a life saver:
Sexual violence reduction as suffering reduction:
Sexual violence reduction for diversity and disadvantage reduction:
Comparing sexual violence rates by gender:
Greatly multiplied risk to women due to the gender ratio in EA:
Gay and bisexual people have around twice the sexual violence risk:
List of specific disadvantages that EA women, bisexuals and homosexuals face:
Potential of sexual violence reduction to prevent productivity loss:
The low estimate:
The high estimate:
Sexual violence reduction as part of movement building:
The male sex offenders studied are shockingly prolific:
I read the whole post, and though I saw a lot of good points about why sexual violence is bad, I didn’t see much about how efficacious the interventions you suggested were. It might be the case that things which increase EA productivity in a cost-effective manner are EA causes—though it seems a little strange to consider something like “getting enough sleep” to be an EA cause—but I don’t think you’ve really made the case that these interventions do have a particularly high effectiveness.
“There are a lot of options that have a chance to succeed. The impact could be many times greater than the effort it takes to use the options explored herein. Testing is needed to determine the effectiveness of the options. Given the human rights concerns and the potential for a large productivity impact, testing options could turn out to be very worthwhile.”—from my conclusion section.
This is my honest conclusion, which I made as accurate as possible. We do not know how effective all the methods are, but it looks like it’s worth testing them to find out.
Having this information is a valid kind of progress.
There are a lot of ways in which sexual violence has an impact on effective altruism, so reducing sexual violence will help us reach our effective altruism goals in various different ways. Because it will help us do more effective altruism, and the cost-benefit ratio looks good, I believe that gives it a lot of potential to be an effective altruism cause. It seems like you may not have read the entire impact section. Here is a table of contents for the impact section:
Impact
Estimating the number of sexually violent people.
Why we should not assume that effective altruism repels sex offenders:
About 6% of men are rapists and an unknown percentage of women.
A rough estimate of rapists in EA:
Sexual violence reduction as a life saver:
Sexual violence reduction as suffering reduction:
Sexual violence reduction for diversity and disadvantage reduction:
Comparing sexual violence rates by gender:
Greatly multiplied risk to women due to the gender ratio in EA:
Gay and bisexual people have around twice the sexual violence risk:
List of specific disadvantages that EA women, bisexuals and homosexuals face:
Potential of sexual violence reduction to prevent productivity loss:
The low estimate:
The high estimate:
Sexual violence reduction as part of movement building:
The male sex offenders studied are shockingly prolific:
Sex offenders increase turnover in workplaces:
Sexual violence reduction for lawsuit prevention:
I read the whole post, and though I saw a lot of good points about why sexual violence is bad, I didn’t see much about how efficacious the interventions you suggested were. It might be the case that things which increase EA productivity in a cost-effective manner are EA causes—though it seems a little strange to consider something like “getting enough sleep” to be an EA cause—but I don’t think you’ve really made the case that these interventions do have a particularly high effectiveness.
“There are a lot of options that have a chance to succeed. The impact could be many times greater than the effort it takes to use the options explored herein. Testing is needed to determine the effectiveness of the options. Given the human rights concerns and the potential for a large productivity impact, testing options could turn out to be very worthwhile.”—from my conclusion section.
This is my honest conclusion, which I made as accurate as possible. We do not know how effective all the methods are, but it looks like it’s worth testing them to find out.
Having this information is a valid kind of progress.