I have a question about the ITN framework, which is used to evaluate and prioritise causes in the context of effective altruism (importance, tractability, and neglectedness). I have the impression that this method does not take into account an element that seems essential to me: the urgency of a cause.
Let’s take the example of existential risks. If we consider two events with the potential to extinguish humanity, but one of them seems likely to happen more quickly, shouldn’t we allocate more resources to the latter? All other things being equal, it would seem logical that urgency should influence the allocation of resources. However, this consideration seems to be absent from the ITN framework.
I think what matters about urgency should be captured by a version of neglectedness that accounts for future resources that will otherwise be spent on the problem. If something is not urgent, we might not expect it to be neglected in the long run, as others will come to work on it. If urgent, there’s a risk few will work on it in time.
I would have considered urgency an aspect of importance maybe? But it’s an interesting point.
The urgency factor reminds me of a Charity Entrepreneurship blog post from a few years ago (which I can’t locate now) that emphasized the importance of considering windows of opportunity when prioritizing causes. For example, preventing the development of a new industry, like octopus farming, is particularly pressing now, because the industry is still nascent. Acting now could be far easier than trying to challenge a well-established industry 5 to 10 years down the line. By having the opportunity to intervene early, we may prevent more suffering, something that may be less accessible for mature industries. So I think I would place this “opportunity/urgency factor” within “tractability”, as it influences our ability to address the issue effectively at a given point in time.