I used to think the same, but now I see that many GWWC pledgers and donors mention 80k as the reason why theyâre pledging or donating, often to neartermist causes.
Iâve 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 âconsequentialist cosmopolitanismâ when thinking about doing good in the world. The vast majority of people donât 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 Goodâs career guide is better, so it makes sense to omit 80k, but I donât 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 itâs a subset of the Probably Good job board, Iâm not sure)
I used to think the same, but now I see that many GWWC pledgers and donors mention 80k as the reason why theyâre 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 ârecommended careersâ is basically all longtermism (or EA community/âresearch stuff) and 80k are explicit on what their priorities are and that this doesnât include âneartermistâ causes.
So I donât think itâs surprising that Rutger doesnât recommend them if he doesnât 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. Iâm curious whether he mentioned ProbablyGood or if heâs 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 donât think itâs surprising that Rutger doesnât recommend them if he doesnât 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 donât value the long-term future, or are skeptical of 80kâs approach to trying to influence it.
Iâm curious whether he mentioned ProbablyGood or if heâs even aware of them?
My understanding is that the SMA team knows much more about the space than I do, so Iâm sure they are aware of them if Iâm aware of them.
I used to think the same, but now I see that many GWWC pledgers and donors mention 80k as the reason why theyâre pledging or donating, often to neartermist causes.
Iâve 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 âconsequentialist cosmopolitanismâ when thinking about doing good in the world. The vast majority of people donât 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 Goodâs career guide is better, so it makes sense to omit 80k, but I donât 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 itâs a subset of the Probably Good job board, Iâm 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 ârecommended careersâ is basically all longtermism (or EA community/âresearch stuff) and 80k are explicit on what their priorities are and that this doesnât include âneartermistâ causes.
So I donât think itâs surprising that Rutger doesnât recommend them if he doesnât 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. Iâm curious whether he mentioned ProbablyGood or if heâs even aware of them?
A lot![1]
80k seems to mostly care about x-risk, but (perhaps surprisingly) their messaging is not just âHoly Shit, X-Riskâ or âCEOs are playing Russian roulette with you and your childrenâ.
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 donât value the long-term future, or are skeptical of 80kâs approach to trying to influence it.
My understanding is that the SMA team knows much more about the space than I do, so Iâm sure they are aware of them if Iâm aware of them.
I donât have an exact number, but I would conservatively guess more than 100 people and more than $100k in total donations for 2024