[disclosure: I work for a family planning organisation (MHI), these views are my own].
It’s eminently reasonable to hold philosophical views that call into the question the work of an organisation such as FEM.
I worry though that it’s somewhat against the spirit of EA and worldview diversity to suggest that donations to other charities may be more appropriate based on views that are not consistently shared across the community?
Is there not the risk of a double-standard here given people with person-affecting views may view donations to a good number of longtermist projects as a harmful misallocation of resources by prioritising future lives over present ones?
You raise a fair point. There’s an analogy to the debate within the community about whether or not we ought to only provide vegan food at events. The point I raised is similar to a proposal that we veganize the food provided at some EA event, and you’re making the reasonable objection that this constitutes an imposition on the non-vegans in the community.
As in the vegan food debate, the best solution is one where we don’t gratuitously cater to or unreasonably impose upon any group in the community.
Regarding worldview diversity, it seems that the Fistula Foundation and GAIN are charities which empower women and girls with greater moral robustness across the diversity of philosophical perspectives held within the community. At first glance, recommending them seems to me to be more inclusive of worldview diversity.
Regarding the risk of a double standard of longtermism over neartermism, I’m not saying “hey, let’s forget about neartermist interventions and instead raise money for a center where academics speculate about ways to prevent the extreme suffering of AIs one trillion years in the future”. The Fistula Foundation and GAIN are still neartermist charities very much in keeping with the post’s theme.
[disclosure: I work for a family planning organisation (MHI), these views are my own].
It’s eminently reasonable to hold philosophical views that call into the question the work of an organisation such as FEM.
I worry though that it’s somewhat against the spirit of EA and worldview diversity to suggest that donations to other charities may be more appropriate based on views that are not consistently shared across the community?
Is there not the risk of a double-standard here given people with person-affecting views may view donations to a good number of longtermist projects as a harmful misallocation of resources by prioritising future lives over present ones?
You raise a fair point. There’s an analogy to the debate within the community about whether or not we ought to only provide vegan food at events. The point I raised is similar to a proposal that we veganize the food provided at some EA event, and you’re making the reasonable objection that this constitutes an imposition on the non-vegans in the community.
As in the vegan food debate, the best solution is one where we don’t gratuitously cater to or unreasonably impose upon any group in the community.
Regarding worldview diversity, it seems that the Fistula Foundation and GAIN are charities which empower women and girls with greater moral robustness across the diversity of philosophical perspectives held within the community. At first glance, recommending them seems to me to be more inclusive of worldview diversity.
Regarding the risk of a double standard of longtermism over neartermism, I’m not saying “hey, let’s forget about neartermist interventions and instead raise money for a center where academics speculate about ways to prevent the extreme suffering of AIs one trillion years in the future”. The Fistula Foundation and GAIN are still neartermist charities very much in keeping with the post’s theme.