Really interesting criticism, Richard—and one I appreciate. I’m fresh out of the EA gate so am keen to be redirected when I’ve missed something important. My starting point here was a more general description about my initial reluctance to engage with EA and how my worries were assuaged by actually getting stuck in and seeing how what I first felt might be empty language was backed up by real sincerity. So to be clear: I am not accusing EA of false rhetoric—I was pleasantly surprised that the key terms and principles shared weren’t parroted back as I’ve experienced in ESG, but were deeply resonant to those I spoke to. It was incredibly refreshing.
Instead, this post is simply my reflection on what I felt was a surprising absence of social justice advocates in this space as I thought this would be their natural habitat. I think that the tension between long term thinking and immediate catastrophe is best bridged by those working at the coalface of how existential risk manifests today, so I wanted to write about the value of appealing to the SJW spirit, rather than dismissing it. However, at present, many in that world view EA as disconnected from the very real suffering and emergency in the here and now and lodge ‘little less conversation, little more action’ criticisms, which aren’t justified either. Overall, we need to do more to explain EA principles in a way which appeals to this important pressure group as it is, in my mind at least, to our detriment that these different factions of the altruistically minded cannot seem to find a common ground to work from.
I should also note, no theory of change is perfect—your point on the importance of responsiveness is well made—but it’s through collaboration we maximise the chance of controlling for individual blind spots and limitations. I’m not advocating for either / or here, just a move away from ‘more of the same’.
As an aside, I certainly do not think the work and messaging of social justice is vapid and am unsure if that is your own belief or something you have taken from my writing?
Really interesting criticism, Richard—and one I appreciate. I’m fresh out of the EA gate so am keen to be redirected when I’ve missed something important. My starting point here was a more general description about my initial reluctance to engage with EA and how my worries were assuaged by actually getting stuck in and seeing how what I first felt might be empty language was backed up by real sincerity. So to be clear: I am not accusing EA of false rhetoric—I was pleasantly surprised that the key terms and principles shared weren’t parroted back as I’ve experienced in ESG, but were deeply resonant to those I spoke to. It was incredibly refreshing.
Instead, this post is simply my reflection on what I felt was a surprising absence of social justice advocates in this space as I thought this would be their natural habitat. I think that the tension between long term thinking and immediate catastrophe is best bridged by those working at the coalface of how existential risk manifests today, so I wanted to write about the value of appealing to the SJW spirit, rather than dismissing it. However, at present, many in that world view EA as disconnected from the very real suffering and emergency in the here and now and lodge ‘little less conversation, little more action’ criticisms, which aren’t justified either. Overall, we need to do more to explain EA principles in a way which appeals to this important pressure group as it is, in my mind at least, to our detriment that these different factions of the altruistically minded cannot seem to find a common ground to work from.
There is some overlap in the New Yorker coverage: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/08/15/the-reluctant-prophet-of-effective-altruism
But thank you for your feedback. It’s really valuable to me as I try and accelerate my learning.
I just wanted to share this as best practice in terms of calling in naturally adverse audiences to longtermist goals: https://republicen.org
I should also note, no theory of change is perfect—your point on the importance of responsiveness is well made—but it’s through collaboration we maximise the chance of controlling for individual blind spots and limitations. I’m not advocating for either / or here, just a move away from ‘more of the same’.
As an aside, I certainly do not think the work and messaging of social justice is vapid and am unsure if that is your own belief or something you have taken from my writing?