Executive summary: In this reflective and values-driven response, Kelsey argues that speculative or “fringe” work in effective altruism (EA)—like researching wild animal suffering—is not only valid but essential for ensuring the movement remains open to moral progress, grounded in real impact, and resilient against historical blind spots, even if such work differs dramatically from mainstream EA priorities.
Key points:
Historical counterfactuals reveal the need for moral vigilance: Kelsey suggests that imagining how EA might have behaved during past moral catastrophes (e.g. slavery, eugenics) can help identify the habits of thought needed to avoid similar errors today—such as openness to unusual arguments and marginalized perspectives.
Speculative ideas can safeguard against moral myopia: Arguments that challenge societal norms or advocate for neglected beings (e.g. wild animals) should be welcomed if they’re motivated by the desire to maximize well-being, even when they seem absurd or unintuitive.
Balance between grounded action and exploratory research: A robust EA movement should simultaneously prioritize tangible, impactful work (like funding effective charities) and support exploratory efforts that may uncover new sources of suffering or effectiveness.
Wild animal suffering is a legitimate EA cause area: Independent of the broader argument for fringe ideas, Kelsey defends welfare biology as an emerging research field with the potential to shape future interventions, much like development economics once did.
Intellectual humility and compassion for differing priorities: Recognizing how hard it is to understand complex moral issues has led Kelsey to feel less frustrated by disagreements and more appreciative of others’ efforts to improve the world, even when they seem misguided.
Pluralism fosters epistemic flexibility: Encouraging diversity in EA goals prevents dogmatism and increases the likelihood that the community remains responsive to new evidence and moral insights.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: In this reflective and values-driven response, Kelsey argues that speculative or “fringe” work in effective altruism (EA)—like researching wild animal suffering—is not only valid but essential for ensuring the movement remains open to moral progress, grounded in real impact, and resilient against historical blind spots, even if such work differs dramatically from mainstream EA priorities.
Key points:
Historical counterfactuals reveal the need for moral vigilance: Kelsey suggests that imagining how EA might have behaved during past moral catastrophes (e.g. slavery, eugenics) can help identify the habits of thought needed to avoid similar errors today—such as openness to unusual arguments and marginalized perspectives.
Speculative ideas can safeguard against moral myopia: Arguments that challenge societal norms or advocate for neglected beings (e.g. wild animals) should be welcomed if they’re motivated by the desire to maximize well-being, even when they seem absurd or unintuitive.
Balance between grounded action and exploratory research: A robust EA movement should simultaneously prioritize tangible, impactful work (like funding effective charities) and support exploratory efforts that may uncover new sources of suffering or effectiveness.
Wild animal suffering is a legitimate EA cause area: Independent of the broader argument for fringe ideas, Kelsey defends welfare biology as an emerging research field with the potential to shape future interventions, much like development economics once did.
Intellectual humility and compassion for differing priorities: Recognizing how hard it is to understand complex moral issues has led Kelsey to feel less frustrated by disagreements and more appreciative of others’ efforts to improve the world, even when they seem misguided.
Pluralism fosters epistemic flexibility: Encouraging diversity in EA goals prevents dogmatism and increases the likelihood that the community remains responsive to new evidence and moral insights.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.