As a community builder in Hungary, this is something that will be more and more relevant for us. I think I am probably less worried about “EA brain drain” than the average community builder outside of big EA Hubs, but some of my thoughts are:
(Epistemic status: the lower the claim is in the list, the less confident I am in it, criticisms are welcome!)
-In the end, it’s really the given individual’s personalchoice as to whether they stay with their local group or move to EA hubs. As a community builder, it doesn’t seem right to me to try to nudge people one way or the other. (Apart from giving my best advice on what I think will have the biggest impact, help thinking about trade-offs etc.)
-Plenty of people will stay with their local group for personal reasons.
-It would be nice if most EA orgs wouldn’t require moving for roles that are possible to do remotely. (Although there might be strong reasons to have people in one office, I didn’t think about this much before)
-We should definitely keep in touch with people who move away and have them as (online) speakers, and ask them to have 1-1s with new but promising members.
-If it’s the case that most of a group’s impact will come from the few most engaged individuals, it seems that we should do everything to support those engaged individuals have +x% more impact than worry about what would be best for our local groups.
-It might be valuable to have more local EA-orgs, in low and middle-income countries (maybe). Even if these won’t produce the biggest impact, they can be a stepping stone for people to skill up and join international orgs, and given that operations costs should be lower in those countries, it could be still cost-effective to run them. (Although I suspect this would work better for some cause areas than others, eg. I could see it working well in animal welfare, but less so in AI Safety).
Thanks for posting this!
As a community builder in Hungary, this is something that will be more and more relevant for us. I think I am probably less worried about “EA brain drain” than the average community builder outside of big EA Hubs, but some of my thoughts are:
(Epistemic status: the lower the claim is in the list, the less confident I am in it, criticisms are welcome!)
-In the end, it’s really the given individual’s personal choice as to whether they stay with their local group or move to EA hubs. As a community builder, it doesn’t seem right to me to try to nudge people one way or the other. (Apart from giving my best advice on what I think will have the biggest impact, help thinking about trade-offs etc.)
-Plenty of people will stay with their local group for personal reasons.
-It would be nice if most EA orgs wouldn’t require moving for roles that are possible to do remotely. (Although there might be strong reasons to have people in one office, I didn’t think about this much before)
-We should definitely keep in touch with people who move away and have them as (online) speakers, and ask them to have 1-1s with new but promising members.
-If it’s the case that most of a group’s impact will come from the few most engaged individuals, it seems that we should do everything to support those engaged individuals have +x% more impact than worry about what would be best for our local groups.
-It might be valuable to have more local EA-orgs, in low and middle-income countries (maybe). Even if these won’t produce the biggest impact, they can be a stepping stone for people to skill up and join international orgs, and given that operations costs should be lower in those countries, it could be still cost-effective to run them. (Although I suspect this would work better for some cause areas than others, eg. I could see it working well in animal welfare, but less so in AI Safety).