You say that decisions about which risks to take should be made democratically. The implication of this seems to be that everyone, and not just EAs, who is aiming to do good with their resources should donate only to their own government. Their govt could then decide how to spend the money democratically.
I’m not fully sure that deciding which risks to take seriously in a democratic fashion logically leads to donating all of your money to the government. Some reasons I think this:
That implies that we all think our governments are well-functioning democracies but I (amongst many others) don’t believe that to be true. I think it’s fairly common sentiment and knowledge that political myopia by politicians, vested interests and other influences mean that governments don’t implement policies that are best for their populations.
As I mentioned in another comment, I think the authors are saying that as existential risks affect the entirety of humanity in a unique way, this is one particular area where we should be deciding things more democratically. This isn’t necessarily the case for spending on education, healthcare, animal welfare, etc, so there it would make sense you donate to institutions that you believe are more effective and the bar for democratic input is lower. The quote from the paper that makes me think this is:
Tying the study of a topic that fundamentally affects the whole of humanity to a niche belief system championed mainly by an unrepresentative, powerful minority of the world is undemocratic and philosophically tenuous.
Thirdly, I think this point is weaker but most political parties aren’t elected by the majority of the population in the country. One cherry picked example is that only 45% of UK voters voted for the Conservative party and we only had a 67% election turnout, meaning that most of the country didn’t actually vote for the winning party. It then seems odd that if you think the outcome would have been different given a higher voter turnout (closer to “true democracy”), you would give all your donations to the winning party.
Note—I don’t necessarily agree with the premise we should prioritise risks democratically but I also don’t think what you’ve said re donating all of our money to the government is the logical conclusion from that statement.
I’m not fully sure that deciding which risks to take seriously in a democratic fashion logically leads to donating all of your money to the government. Some reasons I think this:
That implies that we all think our governments are well-functioning democracies but I (amongst many others) don’t believe that to be true. I think it’s fairly common sentiment and knowledge that political myopia by politicians, vested interests and other influences mean that governments don’t implement policies that are best for their populations.
As I mentioned in another comment, I think the authors are saying that as existential risks affect the entirety of humanity in a unique way, this is one particular area where we should be deciding things more democratically. This isn’t necessarily the case for spending on education, healthcare, animal welfare, etc, so there it would make sense you donate to institutions that you believe are more effective and the bar for democratic input is lower. The quote from the paper that makes me think this is:
Thirdly, I think this point is weaker but most political parties aren’t elected by the majority of the population in the country. One cherry picked example is that only 45% of UK voters voted for the Conservative party and we only had a 67% election turnout, meaning that most of the country didn’t actually vote for the winning party. It then seems odd that if you think the outcome would have been different given a higher voter turnout (closer to “true democracy”), you would give all your donations to the winning party.
Note—I don’t necessarily agree with the premise we should prioritise risks democratically but I also don’t think what you’ve said re donating all of our money to the government is the logical conclusion from that statement.