I’m concerned that the effective altruist movement in general is doing little work with short term gain besides donating to top charities, analysing and recommending the best charities, and movement building. These are all very important, but there is a lack of focus on ‘quick win’ projects that EAs can work towards, or if there is I am not aware of them. I would like to argue two reasons why effective altruists should focus more on analysing, selecting and achieving some short term goals or ‘quick wins’ with solid impact, and not solely on long term existential risk style projects.
Improving civilisation now so it can achieve long term goals more effectively in the future
One of the main reasons that I focus primarily on reducing poverty is that I believe a world without poverty is one that could work towards reducing catastrophic long term risks far more effectively than the world we have today. Or take climate change; in my experience, climate change is low on the list of priorities for most EAs. My understanding of this reasoning is ‘although it will be bad, it will not wipe out humanity’. But if the projections of temperature and sea level over the next century are to be believed, we will be running into a lot of pressing problems that will slow down long term research. 40% of the world’s population lives within 100 km of the coast, many of whom will be displaced as the water, salinity and storm surges encroach on their land. Rising temperatures will lead to increased droughts, reducing food yields. The actual estimates of the number of climate refugees vary greatly, which to me indicates a large uncertainty, but there is a risk that there will be many indeed.
Who will donate to a charity focussing on analysing and reducing the risk of super intelligence misuse when there are starving refugees at their nation’s doorstep, or their city is slowly going underwater? I’m not able to determine whether climate change specifically should come to the fore of EA work, but I would like to propose that there are more factors at paly than are normally considered.
Attracting a different mindset to the movement
There are a lot of different mindsets when it comes to ‘doing good’. It is quite likely that the majority of those who currently identify as effective altruists are analytically minded. It is important to have people thinking critically about which causes to focus on and which charities within those causes to donate to, but stating the facts and expecting people to act accordingly won’t always work. There are many people who intrinsically want to ‘do good’, but aren’t willing to change the cause they focus on. Rather than setting aside these people altogether, we should utilise their expertise and passion in a specific area that, while perhaps not being the most pressing cause, can still do a lot of good. These causes may even be areas where there has not been a lot of meta-analysis to determine the best charities within them. It is ideal to have people donating to the most effective charities in the most effective causes, but failing that I would prefer them to donate to the most effective charity in their selected cause (as long as it is a positive cause!) than select their own charities, as intuition is a poor guide to effectiveness.
Evidence of quick wins being achieved by EAs should also help raise the status and profile of the movement and further attract more people to effective altruism in general.
Examples of potential quick wins
One quick win I am examining now is lobbying the Australian government to run a public health campaign to reduce meat and dairy consumption, or to tax meat and dairy, or something similar. This would lead to longer lived and healthier humans, reducing the public health burden, lead to a reduction in animal suffering, and reduce environmental impacts, especially greenhouse gas emissions exacerbating climate change.
The chances of such a campaign being completely successful may be low, but the rewards would be exceptionally high, and even a failed attempt would be likely to change public perception of the issue. It wouldn’t take many EAs to focus on such a project, and they can garner support from people who are active in specific areas but aren’t necessarily EAs (for example vegans/vegetarians in this case).
Conclusion
I haven’t crunched the numbers on these concepts, they are just some ideas I’ve had and a feeling I got after the EA Global conference that there is too much focus on long term issues. I would greatly appreciate any criticisms of this argument or ideas for more quick wins. Having some EAs focus on achieving some quick win projects has the potential to add credibility and numbers to the cause in addition to any good they achieve through the quick win itself.
Low hanging fruit and ‘quick wins’
Introduction
I’m concerned that the effective altruist movement in general is doing little work with short term gain besides donating to top charities, analysing and recommending the best charities, and movement building. These are all very important, but there is a lack of focus on ‘quick win’ projects that EAs can work towards, or if there is I am not aware of them. I would like to argue two reasons why effective altruists should focus more on analysing, selecting and achieving some short term goals or ‘quick wins’ with solid impact, and not solely on long term existential risk style projects.
Improving civilisation now so it can achieve long term goals more effectively in the future
One of the main reasons that I focus primarily on reducing poverty is that I believe a world without poverty is one that could work towards reducing catastrophic long term risks far more effectively than the world we have today. Or take climate change; in my experience, climate change is low on the list of priorities for most EAs. My understanding of this reasoning is ‘although it will be bad, it will not wipe out humanity’. But if the projections of temperature and sea level over the next century are to be believed, we will be running into a lot of pressing problems that will slow down long term research. 40% of the world’s population lives within 100 km of the coast, many of whom will be displaced as the water, salinity and storm surges encroach on their land. Rising temperatures will lead to increased droughts, reducing food yields. The actual estimates of the number of climate refugees vary greatly, which to me indicates a large uncertainty, but there is a risk that there will be many indeed.
Who will donate to a charity focussing on analysing and reducing the risk of super intelligence misuse when there are starving refugees at their nation’s doorstep, or their city is slowly going underwater? I’m not able to determine whether climate change specifically should come to the fore of EA work, but I would like to propose that there are more factors at paly than are normally considered.
Attracting a different mindset to the movement
There are a lot of different mindsets when it comes to ‘doing good’. It is quite likely that the majority of those who currently identify as effective altruists are analytically minded. It is important to have people thinking critically about which causes to focus on and which charities within those causes to donate to, but stating the facts and expecting people to act accordingly won’t always work. There are many people who intrinsically want to ‘do good’, but aren’t willing to change the cause they focus on. Rather than setting aside these people altogether, we should utilise their expertise and passion in a specific area that, while perhaps not being the most pressing cause, can still do a lot of good. These causes may even be areas where there has not been a lot of meta-analysis to determine the best charities within them. It is ideal to have people donating to the most effective charities in the most effective causes, but failing that I would prefer them to donate to the most effective charity in their selected cause (as long as it is a positive cause!) than select their own charities, as intuition is a poor guide to effectiveness.
Evidence of quick wins being achieved by EAs should also help raise the status and profile of the movement and further attract more people to effective altruism in general.
Examples of potential quick wins
One quick win I am examining now is lobbying the Australian government to run a public health campaign to reduce meat and dairy consumption, or to tax meat and dairy, or something similar. This would lead to longer lived and healthier humans, reducing the public health burden, lead to a reduction in animal suffering, and reduce environmental impacts, especially greenhouse gas emissions exacerbating climate change.
The chances of such a campaign being completely successful may be low, but the rewards would be exceptionally high, and even a failed attempt would be likely to change public perception of the issue. It wouldn’t take many EAs to focus on such a project, and they can garner support from people who are active in specific areas but aren’t necessarily EAs (for example vegans/vegetarians in this case).
Conclusion
I haven’t crunched the numbers on these concepts, they are just some ideas I’ve had and a feeling I got after the EA Global conference that there is too much focus on long term issues. I would greatly appreciate any criticisms of this argument or ideas for more quick wins. Having some EAs focus on achieving some quick win projects has the potential to add credibility and numbers to the cause in addition to any good they achieve through the quick win itself.