As noted in my other comment, I think you make great points, though I also think that we should probably not spend too much energy specifically pitting âeffective altruismâ against âglobal prioritiesâ before weâve thought about more names and what our goals are.
Those things being said, here are three additional points Iâd make in favour of âeffective altruismâ over âglobal prioritiesâ, which I think are related but somewhat distinct from what youâve said:
Another specific reason why a âglobal approachâ or âglobal prioritiesâ arenât necessarily what all EAs should focus on (even within their âaltruistic budgetsâ of time, money, etc.) is comparative advantage. To elaborate: There are some cases in which something like âcharity starts at homeâ makes sense, because there are cases in which âlocal issuesâ are easier for a person to learn about, form connections relevant to, gain influence over, and/âor get motivated about.
I mainly have in mind âlocalâ at a national or regional level, rather than e.g. individual cities.
E.g., I think people from the EU who want to influence AI policy are often/âusually better off influencing EU AI policy rather than US AI policy. And this is despite the fact that I think US AI policy is in general substantially more important to influence on the margin.
Open Phil make a similar argument for making US policy a major focus area (though Iâm not sure I fully endorse all their priorities there, personally).
This still requires prioritisation (e.g., donât just jump to working on improving education in oneâs city because thatâs what one has already heard about), but pushes against just picking global priorities, or even things that are global priorities on the margin (so account for neglectedness) in general.
I think âusing evidence and reason to do the most good possibleâ really is a great slogan-length encapsulation of the aims of EA, from my perspective. Relatedly, I think the âcombining the head and the heartâ framing seems appropriate to me (and also compelling to me personally, though that data point seems less relevant). And âeffective altruismâ lines up neatly with each of those two-part framings.
I think this aligns closely with a bunch of things you already said. To some extent, this may just be a different way of framing some points you made.
I think âglobal prioritiesâ doesnât strongly imply actually taking any actions (whether large-scale or individual). It sounds more naturally like it focuses on research.
EA is already often perceived as too research-focused, so it might be good to avoid things that would exacerbate that.
As noted in my other comment, I think you make great points, though I also think that we should probably not spend too much energy specifically pitting âeffective altruismâ against âglobal prioritiesâ before weâve thought about more names and what our goals are.
Those things being said, here are three additional points Iâd make in favour of âeffective altruismâ over âglobal prioritiesâ, which I think are related but somewhat distinct from what youâve said:
Another specific reason why a âglobal approachâ or âglobal prioritiesâ arenât necessarily what all EAs should focus on (even within their âaltruistic budgetsâ of time, money, etc.) is comparative advantage. To elaborate: There are some cases in which something like âcharity starts at homeâ makes sense, because there are cases in which âlocal issuesâ are easier for a person to learn about, form connections relevant to, gain influence over, and/âor get motivated about.
I mainly have in mind âlocalâ at a national or regional level, rather than e.g. individual cities.
E.g., I think people from the EU who want to influence AI policy are often/âusually better off influencing EU AI policy rather than US AI policy. And this is despite the fact that I think US AI policy is in general substantially more important to influence on the margin.
Open Phil make a similar argument for making US policy a major focus area (though Iâm not sure I fully endorse all their priorities there, personally).
This still requires prioritisation (e.g., donât just jump to working on improving education in oneâs city because thatâs what one has already heard about), but pushes against just picking global priorities, or even things that are global priorities on the margin (so account for neglectedness) in general.
I think âusing evidence and reason to do the most good possibleâ really is a great slogan-length encapsulation of the aims of EA, from my perspective. Relatedly, I think the âcombining the head and the heartâ framing seems appropriate to me (and also compelling to me personally, though that data point seems less relevant). And âeffective altruismâ lines up neatly with each of those two-part framings.
I think this aligns closely with a bunch of things you already said. To some extent, this may just be a different way of framing some points you made.
I think âglobal prioritiesâ doesnât strongly imply actually taking any actions (whether large-scale or individual). It sounds more naturally like it focuses on research.
EA is already often perceived as too research-focused, so it might be good to avoid things that would exacerbate that.