Impressed with the infrastructure you built around the post (the anon forms and the votey comments)! Also love the randomisation ideas.
You do well at reporting the views without necessarily endorsing them in the first half—but then the policy suggestions seem to endorse every criticism. (Maybe you do agree with all of them?) But if not there’s a PR flavour to it: “we have to spend on climate cos otherwise people will be sad and not like us”. Of the four arguments in Policy section 1, none seem to depend on estimating the expected value and comparing it to the existing EA portfolio, as Ben Dixon memorably did.
(I’d have no objection if the section was titled “appropriate respect for climate work” rather than “more emphasis”, which implies a zero-sum bid for resources, optimality be damned.)
Impressed with the infrastructure you built around the post (the anon forms and the votey comments)! Also love the randomisation ideas.
You do well at reporting the views without necessarily endorsing them in the first half—but then the policy suggestions seem to endorse every criticism. (Maybe you do agree with all of them?) But if not there’s a PR flavour to it: “we have to spend on climate cos otherwise people will be sad and not like us”. Of the four arguments in Policy section 1, none seem to depend on estimating the expected value and comparing it to the existing EA portfolio, as Ben Dixon memorably did.
(I’d have no objection if the section was titled “appropriate respect for climate work” rather than “more emphasis”, which implies a zero-sum bid for resources, optimality be damned.)
I ended up significantly reworking the section. Any feedback on the new version?
lgtm
Thank you and good points.
I guess what I was attempting was to steelman all of the criticisms I heard. Trying to come up with a version I do agree with.
I will change the title to “Be more respectful of climate change work”