As with many âp->qâ arguments, I think this one is true for the trivial reason that q holds independent of p. I.e. itâs true that itâs unlikely that people will identify as EAâs one hundred years from now[1] but that also was unlikely 5 years ago.
This is a good and valid point for sure. I suppose that for the 4 failed movements I bring up in the post, they all failed to achieve their goals in their own terms and their ideas failed to influence other movements.[1] I think the q of âEffective Altruism ends as a movementâ is likely because the rate of dying out for all movements is 100%, just like it is for all living beings
So perhaps I want to distinguish between:
1) Movements that âdie outâ because they succeed enough that their ideas permeate into the mainstream and outlive the initial social/âintellectual movement
2) Movements that âdie outâ because they lose enough reputation and support that nobody carries those ideas forward.
This would be different as well from:
3) The Movementâs goals eventually being realised
4) The Movement being a force for good in the world
So The Chartists might be an example of 2 & 3 - after the 1848 demostration they basically completely faded from power, but by 1918 5 out of 6 Chartist reforms had been implemented. Itâs not clear to what extent the movement was causally responsible for this though
I think Revolutionary Marxism of various forms might be 1 & 4 - it was hugely popular in the late 19th and early 20th century even after Marx died, or the waning of power of explicitly Marxist parties, the ideas still had massive influence and can be casually traced to those intellectuals I think. I nevertheless think that their influence has been very negative for the world, but YMMV[2]
So I guess the underlying question is, if EA is in a prolonged or terminal decline (as in, we expect no early-Quaker style reforms to arrest the momentum, which is not guaranteed) then is it of form 1 or 2? Iâm not sure, itâs an open question. I think conditioning on an SBF-scale reputational damage and subsequent âevaporate coolingâ of the movement since, the odds should have moved toward 2, but itâs not guaranteed for sure and itâd be interesting to see examples of which social movements match 1 vs 2.
I donât want to get into a huge debate about Marxism or not, itâs just the first thing that came to mind. If you are, you could just substitute âRevolutionary Marxismâ for âNeoliberal Capitalismâ of Hayek et al in the 20th century, which had a massively successful impact on the Reagan and Thatcher administrations, for instance
Those seem like reasonable categories. I disagree with the antecedent but will rephrase your question as âwhat type of decline am I most worried about?â, the answer to which is â1âł.
In particular: I think itâs possible that AI will be such a compelling issue that the intellectual excitement and labor moves away from cause-neutral EA to EA-flavored AI Safety. This is already happening a bit (and also happened with animal welfare); it doesnât seem crazy to think that it will become a larger problem.
This is a good and valid point for sure. I suppose that for the 4 failed movements I bring up in the post, they all failed to achieve their goals in their own terms and their ideas failed to influence other movements.[1] I think the q of âEffective Altruism ends as a movementâ is likely because the rate of dying out for all movements is 100%, just like it is for all living beings
So perhaps I want to distinguish between:
1) Movements that âdie outâ because they succeed enough that their ideas permeate into the mainstream and outlive the initial social/âintellectual movement
2) Movements that âdie outâ because they lose enough reputation and support that nobody carries those ideas forward.
This would be different as well from:
3) The Movementâs goals eventually being realised
4) The Movement being a force for good in the world
So The Chartists might be an example of 2 & 3 - after the 1848 demostration they basically completely faded from power, but by 1918 5 out of 6 Chartist reforms had been implemented. Itâs not clear to what extent the movement was causally responsible for this though
I think Revolutionary Marxism of various forms might be 1 & 4 - it was hugely popular in the late 19th and early 20th century even after Marx died, or the waning of power of explicitly Marxist parties, the ideas still had massive influence and can be casually traced to those intellectuals I think. I nevertheless think that their influence has been very negative for the world, but YMMV[2]
So I guess the underlying question is, if EA is in a prolonged or terminal decline (as in, we expect no early-Quaker style reforms to arrest the momentum, which is not guaranteed) then is it of form 1 or 2? Iâm not sure, itâs an open question. I think conditioning on an SBF-scale reputational damage and subsequent âevaporate coolingâ of the movement since, the odds should have moved toward 2, but itâs not guaranteed for sure and itâd be interesting to see examples of which social movements match 1 vs 2.
Thereâs maybe some wiggle room around New Atheism/âTechnocracy, but the case is harder to make if you think theyâre causally responsible
I donât want to get into a huge debate about Marxism or not, itâs just the first thing that came to mind. If you are, you could just substitute âRevolutionary Marxismâ for âNeoliberal Capitalismâ of Hayek et al in the 20th century, which had a massively successful impact on the Reagan and Thatcher administrations, for instance
Those seem like reasonable categories. I disagree with the antecedent but will rephrase your question as âwhat type of decline am I most worried about?â, the answer to which is â1âł.
In particular: I think itâs possible that AI will be such a compelling issue that the intellectual excitement and labor moves away from cause-neutral EA to EA-flavored AI Safety. This is already happening a bit (and also happened with animal welfare); it doesnât seem crazy to think that it will become a larger problem.