I agree with/âappreciate these points. I think there is a difference in how each sides deals with each othersâ concerns, but I guess I can see that it might be fair anyway. That is, in EAFâs guidelines, authors are encouraged to âinclude some of the best arguments against these positions, and, if appropriate, mention the wide acceptance of these arguments in the effective altruism communityâ, while in Becksteadâs, 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 âcause human extinctionâ 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 donât have the capacity to give detailed public replies to this right now. My respective short answers would be something like âsure, that seems fineâ and âmight inspire riskier content, depends a lot on the framing and contextâ, but thereâs nuance to this thatâs 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 Iâm happy to share my thoughts!
Thanks!
I agree with/âappreciate these points. I think there is a difference in how each sides deals with each othersâ concerns, but I guess I can see that it might be fair anyway. That is, in EAFâs guidelines, authors are encouraged to âinclude some of the best arguments against these positions, and, if appropriate, mention the wide acceptance of these arguments in the effective altruism communityâ, while in Becksteadâs, 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 âcause human extinctionâ 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 donât have the capacity to give detailed public replies to this right now. My respective short answers would be something like âsure, that seems fineâ and âmight inspire riskier content, depends a lot on the framing and contextâ, but thereâs nuance to this thatâs 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 Iâm happy to share my thoughts!