I read the Dutch version earlier last year and really enjoyed it! Interesting stories (e.g. how Ralph Nader established car safety) and fun to read. Reminded me of What We Owe The Future in some ways.
AIM (Charity Entrepreneurship) gets an entire chapter, and is the main EA org he writes about.
Curious that 80k is hardly mentioned at all. I wonder if that’s a conscious choice because he did not want to recommend 80k, or it simply did not fit in his story. Maybe Rutger resonates more with neartermist EA and therefore left out longtermist orgs like 80k. The cause areas the School for Moral Ambition (SMA) prioritzed so far in their fellowship were also more neartermist: alternative protein & tobacco control.
I used to think the same, but now I see that many GWWC pledgers and donors mention 80k as the reason why they’re pledging or donating, often to neartermist causes.
I’ve also heard several stories like this one of people being able to do more good in a neartermist cause thanks to 80k.
I think we tend to overestimate how common it is to consider “consequentialist cosmopolitanism” when thinking about doing good in the world. The vast majority of people don’t consider important things like counterfactuals, or that they can help many more people abroad.
See for example Part 2 and Part 3 of the 80k career guide: I think they can definitely be valuable for an introduction to neartermist EA.
You could maybe say that Probably Good’s career guide is better, so it makes sense to omit 80k, but I don’t know if they cover all the neartermist-valuable topics covered by 80k.
The 80k job board also has a lot of non-longtermist roles (but maybe it’s a subset of the Probably Good job board, I’m not sure)
I used to think the same, but now I see that many GWWC pledgers and donors mention 80k as the reason why they’re pledging or donating, often to neartermist causes.
How many of them have made that choice recently though? I know 80k still talks about earning to give (which IIRC it was once the major proponent of) and Givewell recommended charities in its intro and hosts all sorts on its podcasts and job boards, but its “recommended careers” is basically all longtermism (or EA community/research stuff) and 80k are explicit on what their priorities are and that this doesn’t include “neartermist” causes.
So I don’t think it’s surprising that Rutger doesn’t recommend them if he doesn’t share (or even actively disagrees with?) those priorities even if his current focus on persuading mid-career professionals to look into alternative proteins and tobacco prevention sounds very EA-ish in other respects. I’m curious whether he mentioned ProbablyGood or if he’s even aware of them?
They instead also cover a lot of cause-neutral EA arguments (e.g. scope sensitivity and the importance of effectiveness)
So I don’t think it’s surprising that Rutger doesn’t recommend them if he doesn’t share (or even actively disagrees with?) those priorities even if his current focus on persuading mid-career professionals to look into alternative proteins and tobacco prevention sounds very EA-ish in other respects.
Yeah agree with this, but I still think that 80k is more than useless for altruists who don’t value the long-term future, or are skeptical of 80k’s approach to trying to influence it.
I’m curious whether he mentioned ProbablyGood or if he’s even aware of them?
My understanding is that the SMA team knows much more about the space than I do, so I’m sure they are aware of them if I’m aware of them.
80k has made important contributions to our thinking about career choice, as seen e.g. in their work on replaceability, career capital, personal fit, and the ITN framework. This work does not assume a position on the neartermism vs. longtermism debate, so I think the author’s neartermist sympathies can’t fully explain or justify the omission.
Thanks pablo I completely agree with the amazing contributions and work thinking about all those important career related things.
Although like your say the work doesn’t assume a position, the current website and materials kind of do.
And if you take the snapshot in time now of 80k and send a more naive EA interested person to their website, you still get a longtermist bent feel even though I agree that’s not what’s behind it.
I read the Dutch version earlier last year and really enjoyed it! Interesting stories (e.g. how Ralph Nader established car safety) and fun to read. Reminded me of What We Owe The Future in some ways.
AIM (Charity Entrepreneurship) gets an entire chapter, and is the main EA org he writes about.
Curious that 80k is hardly mentioned at all. I wonder if that’s a conscious choice because he did not want to recommend 80k, or it simply did not fit in his story. Maybe Rutger resonates more with neartermist EA and therefore left out longtermist orgs like 80k. The cause areas the School for Moral Ambition (SMA) prioritzed so far in their fellowship were also more neartermist: alternative protein & tobacco control.
If your bent is neartermist EA, it would sadly make some sense to almost completely leave out 80k due to their longtermist bent at the moment.
I used to think the same, but now I see that many GWWC pledgers and donors mention 80k as the reason why they’re pledging or donating, often to neartermist causes.
I’ve also heard several stories like this one of people being able to do more good in a neartermist cause thanks to 80k.
I think we tend to overestimate how common it is to consider “consequentialist cosmopolitanism” when thinking about doing good in the world. The vast majority of people don’t consider important things like counterfactuals, or that they can help many more people abroad.
See for example Part 2 and Part 3 of the 80k career guide: I think they can definitely be valuable for an introduction to neartermist EA.
You could maybe say that Probably Good’s career guide is better, so it makes sense to omit 80k, but I don’t know if they cover all the neartermist-valuable topics covered by 80k.
The 80k job board also has a lot of non-longtermist roles (but maybe it’s a subset of the Probably Good job board, I’m not sure)
How many of them have made that choice recently though? I know 80k still talks about earning to give (which IIRC it was once the major proponent of) and Givewell recommended charities in its intro and hosts all sorts on its podcasts and job boards, but its “recommended careers” is basically all longtermism (or EA community/research stuff) and 80k are explicit on what their priorities are and that this doesn’t include “neartermist” causes.
So I don’t think it’s surprising that Rutger doesn’t recommend them if he doesn’t share (or even actively disagrees with?) those priorities even if his current focus on persuading mid-career professionals to look into alternative proteins and tobacco prevention sounds very EA-ish in other respects. I’m curious whether he mentioned ProbablyGood or if he’s even aware of them?
A lot![1]
80k seems to mostly care about x-risk, but (perhaps surprisingly) their messaging is not just “Holy Shit, X-Risk” or “CEOs are playing Russian roulette with you and your children”.
They instead also cover a lot of cause-neutral EA arguments (e.g. scope sensitivity and the importance of effectiveness)
Yeah agree with this, but I still think that 80k is more than useless for altruists who don’t value the long-term future, or are skeptical of 80k’s approach to trying to influence it.
My understanding is that the SMA team knows much more about the space than I do, so I’m sure they are aware of them if I’m aware of them.
I don’t have an exact number, but I would conservatively guess more than 100 people and more than $100k in total donations for 2024
80k has made important contributions to our thinking about career choice, as seen e.g. in their work on replaceability, career capital, personal fit, and the ITN framework. This work does not assume a position on the neartermism vs. longtermism debate, so I think the author’s neartermist sympathies can’t fully explain or justify the omission.
Thanks pablo I completely agree with the amazing contributions and work thinking about all those important career related things.
Although like your say the work doesn’t assume a position, the current website and materials kind of do.
And if you take the snapshot in time now of 80k and send a more naive EA interested person to their website, you still get a longtermist bent feel even though I agree that’s not what’s behind it.