I used to think the same, but now I see that many GWWC pledgers and donors mention 80k as the reason why theyāre pledging or donating, often to neartermist causes.
Iāve 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 āconsequentialist cosmopolitanismā when thinking about doing good in the world. The vast majority of people donāt 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 Goodās career guide is better, so it makes sense to omit 80k, but I donāt 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 itās a subset of the Probably Good job board, Iām not sure)
I used to think the same, but now I see that many GWWC pledgers and donors mention 80k as the reason why theyāre 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 ārecommended careersā is basically all longtermism (or EA community/āresearch stuff) and 80k are explicit on what their priorities are and that this doesnāt include āneartermistā causes.
So I donāt think itās surprising that Rutger doesnāt recommend them if he doesnāt 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. Iām curious whether he mentioned ProbablyGood or if heās 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 donāt think itās surprising that Rutger doesnāt recommend them if he doesnāt 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 donāt value the long-term future, or are skeptical of 80kās approach to trying to influence it.
Iām curious whether he mentioned ProbablyGood or if heās even aware of them?
My understanding is that the SMA team knows much more about the space than I do, so Iām sure they are aware of them if Iām 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 theyāre pledging or donating, often to neartermist causes.
Iāve 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 āconsequentialist cosmopolitanismā when thinking about doing good in the world. The vast majority of people donāt 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 Goodās career guide is better, so it makes sense to omit 80k, but I donāt 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 itās a subset of the Probably Good job board, Iām 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 ārecommended careersā is basically all longtermism (or EA community/āresearch stuff) and 80k are explicit on what their priorities are and that this doesnāt include āneartermistā causes.
So I donāt think itās surprising that Rutger doesnāt recommend them if he doesnāt 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. Iām curious whether he mentioned ProbablyGood or if heās even aware of them?
A lot![1]
80k seems to mostly care about x-risk, but (perhaps surprisingly) their messaging is not just āHoly Shit, X-Riskā or āCEOs are playing Russian roulette with you and your childrenā.
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 donāt value the long-term future, or are skeptical of 80kās approach to trying to influence it.
My understanding is that the SMA team knows much more about the space than I do, so Iām sure they are aware of them if Iām aware of them.
I donāt have an exact number, but I would conservatively guess more than 100 people and more than $100k in total donations for 2024