I don’t see anything in the OP about asking for disproportionate representation of minorities. They seem to be advocating for proportionate representation, and noticing that EA fails to live up to this expectation.
I also don’t think that EA truly is only a “sacrifice”. For one thing, plenty of EA jobs pay quite well. EA is also an opportunity to do good. EA also has a lot of influence, and directs substantial amounts of money. It’s totally reasonable to be concerned that the people making these decisions are not representative of the people that they affect, and may lack useful insight as a result.
I would argue that EA jobs don’t pay well at all for the level of work they expect, and that they all have a substantial sacrifice premium as compared to other jobs. Also EA job hunting is awful, the work is quite horrendously insecure, and I definitely wouldn’t recommend EA as a kind of way to get ahead in life. I consider the overmarketing of this to ambitious young idealists to be one of EA’s worst failures.
I would agree that I view EA as a great opportunity, and by such sacrifice we achieve a somewhat spiritual process of transformative self-actualisation. But I don’t think someone else should have to, particularly not a someone else that is struggling in a more marginalised space. And it’s my experience that they generally don’t.
Legitimately, if you have any “you should join up with EA” argument that works on a marginalised person that isn’t just lying by pretending there’s more in it for them than there actually is, please let me know because I’d like to use it.
EA jobs pay great if you’re from the global south—and yet!
(This discussion seems to be anchoring on diversity as it’s practiced in wealthy economies, which I don’t think necessarily has to be the main way of making EA diverse)
Even if you think that involvement in EA is mostly a matter of altruistic self-sacrifice (which I think is an oversimplification), it can still be true that there are women, people of colour, LGBTQ people, or people from other marginalized groups who want to make that altruistic self-sacrifice. Should they have the autonomy, the right to make that decision? I think so.
If people from these groups say that the barriers to their involvement in EA is not the amount of self-sacrifice involved, but other factors like perceived unwelcomingness toward people of their demographic, not seeing other people like them represented in EA, or a lack of trust or a sense of safety (e.g. around sexual harassment or instances of discrimination or prejudice, or the community’s response to it) — or other things of that nature — then that is a moral failing on the part of EA, and not noblesse oblige.
I don’t see anything in the OP about asking for disproportionate representation of minorities. They seem to be advocating for proportionate representation, and noticing that EA fails to live up to this expectation.
I also don’t think that EA truly is only a “sacrifice”. For one thing, plenty of EA jobs pay quite well. EA is also an opportunity to do good. EA also has a lot of influence, and directs substantial amounts of money. It’s totally reasonable to be concerned that the people making these decisions are not representative of the people that they affect, and may lack useful insight as a result.
I would argue that EA jobs don’t pay well at all for the level of work they expect, and that they all have a substantial sacrifice premium as compared to other jobs. Also EA job hunting is awful, the work is quite horrendously insecure, and I definitely wouldn’t recommend EA as a kind of way to get ahead in life. I consider the overmarketing of this to ambitious young idealists to be one of EA’s worst failures.
I would agree that I view EA as a great opportunity, and by such sacrifice we achieve a somewhat spiritual process of transformative self-actualisation. But I don’t think someone else should have to, particularly not a someone else that is struggling in a more marginalised space. And it’s my experience that they generally don’t.
Legitimately, if you have any “you should join up with EA” argument that works on a marginalised person that isn’t just lying by pretending there’s more in it for them than there actually is, please let me know because I’d like to use it.
EA jobs pay great if you’re from the global south—and yet!
(This discussion seems to be anchoring on diversity as it’s practiced in wealthy economies, which I don’t think necessarily has to be the main way of making EA diverse)
Even if you think that involvement in EA is mostly a matter of altruistic self-sacrifice (which I think is an oversimplification), it can still be true that there are women, people of colour, LGBTQ people, or people from other marginalized groups who want to make that altruistic self-sacrifice. Should they have the autonomy, the right to make that decision? I think so.
If people from these groups say that the barriers to their involvement in EA is not the amount of self-sacrifice involved, but other factors like perceived unwelcomingness toward people of their demographic, not seeing other people like them represented in EA, or a lack of trust or a sense of safety (e.g. around sexual harassment or instances of discrimination or prejudice, or the community’s response to it) — or other things of that nature — then that is a moral failing on the part of EA, and not noblesse oblige.
I agree with you that improving intracommunity experience is important.