Hm, I’m a little sad about this. I always thought that it was nice to have GWWC presenting a more “conservative” face of EA, which is a lot easier for people to get on board with.
But I guess this is less true with the changes to the pledge—GWWC is more about the pledge than about global poverty.
That does make me think that there might be space for an EA org that explicitly focussed on global poverty. Perhaps GiveWell already fills this role adequately.
You might think The Life You Can Save plays this role.
I’ve generally been surprised over the years by the extent to which the more general ‘helping others as much as we can, using evidence and reason’ has been easy for people to get on board with. I had initially expected that to be less appealing, due to its abstractness/potentially leading to weird conclusions. But I’m not actually convinced that’s the case anymore. And if it’s not detrimental, it seems more straightforward to start with the general case, plus examples, than to start with only a more narrow example.
I hadn’t thought the TLYCS as an/the anti-poverty org. I guess I didn’t think about it as they’re not so present in my part of the EA blogsphere. Maybe it’s less of a problem if there are at least charities/orgs to represent different world views (although this would require quite a lot of duplication of work so it’s less than ideal).
Hm, I’m a little sad about this. I always thought that it was nice to have GWWC presenting a more “conservative” face of EA, which is a lot easier for people to get on board with.
But I guess this is less true with the changes to the pledge—GWWC is more about the pledge than about global poverty.
That does make me think that there might be space for an EA org that explicitly focussed on global poverty. Perhaps GiveWell already fills this role adequately.
You might think The Life You Can Save plays this role.
I’ve generally been surprised over the years by the extent to which the more general ‘helping others as much as we can, using evidence and reason’ has been easy for people to get on board with. I had initially expected that to be less appealing, due to its abstractness/potentially leading to weird conclusions. But I’m not actually convinced that’s the case anymore. And if it’s not detrimental, it seems more straightforward to start with the general case, plus examples, than to start with only a more narrow example.
I hadn’t thought the TLYCS as an/the anti-poverty org. I guess I didn’t think about it as they’re not so present in my part of the EA blogsphere. Maybe it’s less of a problem if there are at least charities/orgs to represent different world views (although this would require quite a lot of duplication of work so it’s less than ideal).