I agree with/appreciate these points. I think there is a difference in how each sides deals with each others’ concerns, but I guess I can see that it might be fair anyway. That is, in EAF’s guidelines, authors are encouraged to “include some of the best arguments against these positions, and, if appropriate, mention the wide acceptance of these arguments in the effective altruism community”, while in Beckstead’s, authors are encouraged to discuss the practical concerns of the SFE community, which might not otherwise be practical concerns for them, depending on their empirical views (e.g. astronomical suffering would be outweighed by far more wellbeing).
Also, I expect this not to be the case, but is general advocacy against working on extinction risks (and in favour of other priorities) something that would be discouraged according to the guidelines? This may “cause human extinction” by causing people to (voluntarily) be less likely to try to prevent extinction. Similarly, what about advocacy for voluntary human extinction (however unlikely it is anyway)? I think these should be fine if done in an honest and civil way, and neither underhandedly nor manipulatively.
Thanks! I think I don’t have the capacity to give detailed public replies to this right now. My respective short answers would be something like “sure, that seems fine” and “might inspire riskier content, depends a lot on the framing and context”, but there’s nuance to this that’s hard to convey in half a sentence. If you would like to write something about these topics and are interested in my perspective, feel free to get in touch and I’m happy to share my thoughts!
Thanks!
I agree with/appreciate these points. I think there is a difference in how each sides deals with each others’ concerns, but I guess I can see that it might be fair anyway. That is, in EAF’s guidelines, authors are encouraged to “include some of the best arguments against these positions, and, if appropriate, mention the wide acceptance of these arguments in the effective altruism community”, while in Beckstead’s, authors are encouraged to discuss the practical concerns of the SFE community, which might not otherwise be practical concerns for them, depending on their empirical views (e.g. astronomical suffering would be outweighed by far more wellbeing).
Also, I expect this not to be the case, but is general advocacy against working on extinction risks (and in favour of other priorities) something that would be discouraged according to the guidelines? This may “cause human extinction” by causing people to (voluntarily) be less likely to try to prevent extinction. Similarly, what about advocacy for voluntary human extinction (however unlikely it is anyway)? I think these should be fine if done in an honest and civil way, and neither underhandedly nor manipulatively.
Thanks! I think I don’t have the capacity to give detailed public replies to this right now. My respective short answers would be something like “sure, that seems fine” and “might inspire riskier content, depends a lot on the framing and context”, but there’s nuance to this that’s hard to convey in half a sentence. If you would like to write something about these topics and are interested in my perspective, feel free to get in touch and I’m happy to share my thoughts!