This might just be an object-level disagreement about where EA’s main positive impact is likely to come from, on our respective models of the world. E.g., if you think EA mainly has a positive impact via increasing donations to GiveDirectlly, then I buy that EA’s current idea pipeline might be a lot weirder than optimal for that.
This is something of an argument for not including such different cause areas under the same banner.
Yep, it’s definitely an important consideration that points in that direction! I’m not sure what the balance of arguments favors here, though I lean toward thinking it’s good EA is a thing.
Since people have different visions of what they’d like EA to become, I think the best option is for people to articulate their visions and argue for them, and then we can try to converge; and to the extent we persistently disagree, we try to negotiate and plan some fair compromise. (Keeping in mind that it’s hard to bind a huge informal community/movement to anything, no matter how much a small subset wants to negotiate a specific plan!)
This is something of an argument for not including such different cause areas under the same banner.
Yep, it’s definitely an important consideration that points in that direction! I’m not sure what the balance of arguments favors here, though I lean toward thinking it’s good EA is a thing.
Since people have different visions of what they’d like EA to become, I think the best option is for people to articulate their visions and argue for them, and then we can try to converge; and to the extent we persistently disagree, we try to negotiate and plan some fair compromise. (Keeping in mind that it’s hard to bind a huge informal community/movement to anything, no matter how much a small subset wants to negotiate a specific plan!)