> I think we’d all be happy for you to defend this assertion, since it is quite controversial within EA and the broader community.
I think you must be misreading my assertion, because I don’t think it’s very controversial.
I am here saying—and not here defending (though I link to others saying this) -- that many short term welfare benefits to humans are likely to compound in a way that means that the size of short term benefit tracks the size of long term benefit.
I’m also claiming that, in contrast, with animal welfare interventions it matters much more how the benefit was achieved, because most of the indirect benefits will come through the same channel (better welfare outcomes from human value shifts, for example, may be much better than similarly sized better welfare outcomes from the invention of a comfier cage for battery hens).
If that is your assertion, I feel the post is misrepresenting your view as something much stronger (i.e human-focused causes have significant positive impact that non-human animal-focused causes do not, therefore human-focused causes are better). This is disingenuous and caused our negative reactions.
I’ve just re-read the post and I don’t think it misrepresents the view. But it is clearly the case that people reading it can come away with an erroneous impression, so something has gone wrong. Sorry about that.
“that many short term welfare benefits to humans are likely to compound in a way that means that the size of short term benefit tracks the size of long term benefit.”
I think this is actually controversial in the EA community. My impression is that Eliezer Yudkowsky and Luke Muehlhauser would disagree with it, as would I. Others who support the view are likely to acknowledge that it’s non-obvious and could be mistaken. Many forms of short-term progress may increase long-term risks.
> I think we’d all be happy for you to defend this assertion, since it is quite controversial within EA and the broader community.
I think you must be misreading my assertion, because I don’t think it’s very controversial.
I am here saying—and not here defending (though I link to others saying this) -- that many short term welfare benefits to humans are likely to compound in a way that means that the size of short term benefit tracks the size of long term benefit.
I’m also claiming that, in contrast, with animal welfare interventions it matters much more how the benefit was achieved, because most of the indirect benefits will come through the same channel (better welfare outcomes from human value shifts, for example, may be much better than similarly sized better welfare outcomes from the invention of a comfier cage for battery hens).
If that is your assertion, I feel the post is misrepresenting your view as something much stronger (i.e human-focused causes have significant positive impact that non-human animal-focused causes do not, therefore human-focused causes are better). This is disingenuous and caused our negative reactions.
I’ve just re-read the post and I don’t think it misrepresents the view. But it is clearly the case that people reading it can come away with an erroneous impression, so something has gone wrong. Sorry about that.
“that many short term welfare benefits to humans are likely to compound in a way that means that the size of short term benefit tracks the size of long term benefit.”
I think this is actually controversial in the EA community. My impression is that Eliezer Yudkowsky and Luke Muehlhauser would disagree with it, as would I. Others who support the view are likely to acknowledge that it’s non-obvious and could be mistaken. Many forms of short-term progress may increase long-term risks.