advocated for reducing human populations in the third world in order to reduce meat consumption. This was criticised by several people, both for ignoring flow-through effects (like existential risks, wild animal suffering, or long run growth, or population ethics) and for seeming dishonest about your true motivations / resembling eugenics
Is this view that this “resembles eugenics” your personal view? Because I can’t find this claim in your linked comments besides Ben Millwood’s feelings that this could produce negative reactions.
Millwood’s concerns are fine and welcome, but your comment seems much much stronger. Do we want to encourage a norm that stops discussions/projects, because in a contrived, remote way, these could lead to people slipping in implausible, extremely negative associations (often to the disadvantage of conservative viewpoints, since the coastal left is heavily over represented in EA?)
now deleted from the internet...seeming dishonest about your true motivations...neglecting these concerns
You say the initial presentation of the idea is “dishonest”, but it’s not clear why? You state their agenda is the mission of reducing animal suffering, and then you state that this ignores flow through effects. That is not dishonesty.
I see you have continued to do work on charities that would reduce human populations, though without making as explicit that the original motivation was not so much to help people directly but rather to reduce their number.
Charity Entrepreneurship has developed literal standout EA charities including LEEP, which is actively promoted Will MacAskill, and Fortify Health, which is funded by GiveWell. Both of these improve the welfare, almost solely, of people in developing countries.
This takes vast amounts of effort and dedication. Both Karolina and Joey, and many members of the team, have worked and developed deep competencies in developing countries.
It seems like family planning would be more along these lines of CE’s work, instead of some covert eugenics program?
was criticised by several people, both for ignoring flow-through effects (like existential risks, wild animal suffering, or long run growth, or population ethics)
...
neglecting these concerns, even though they had caused others to reach the opposite conclusion, because of time limitations
...
You suggested that you “prefer to discuss it in conversation rather than in writing”; have you published such a report on population ethics and other flow-through effects since?
Do anyone here think that a full analysis of (checks notes) “existential risks, wild animal suffering, or long run growth, or population ethics”, especially to the degree that it would satisfy EA forum discussion norms, is a going to be practical use of time, when they could create more charities?
This was criticised by several people, both for ignoring flow-through effects (like existential risks, wild animal suffering, or long run growth, or population ethics)
There is a lot going on here, but basically none of these concerns are mainstream (so generally are neglected from an EA standpoint).
On the other hand, family planning and access to contraception seems to be almost universally conventional promoted because it empowers women and reduces poverty.
Sorry, perhaps I should have been more clear. I think there are two core issues:
Honesty:
Promoting a intervention based on analysis X (e.g. neonatal health) when the actual reason you believe in it is Y (animal welfare), and being intentionally misleading about this fact.
Flow-through:
Analyzing in depth one positive flow-through effect (animal welfare) but not other flow through effects that plausibly are very large and negative (e.g. existential risk, wild animal welfare, growth, population ethics). (Unless there is unpublished research on this subject, hence my asking).
I don’t have any principled objection to doing unpopular things; there are many EAs doing potentially unpopular things in an epistemically principled way without actively misleading people.
in a contrived, remote way, these could lead to people slipping in implausible, extremely negative associations
It’s not a crux for me so I don’t want to go to deeply into this point, but I don’t think it is that implausible that normal people might connect ‘we want to reduce populations in the third world’ with ‘eugenics’.
Do anyone here think that a full analysis of (checks notes) “existential risks, wild animal suffering, or long run growth, or population ethics”, especially to the degree that it would satisfy EA forum discussion norms, is a going to be practical use of time, when they could create more charities?
Yes, if it is plausible that an analysis could suggest that, all things considered, creating a specific charity is a bad idea, then some of the analysis you do before creating that charity should be on those considerations. Or, you could skip the analysis and create some other charity that does not require such research.
Umm, there is a lot going on here.
Is this view that this “resembles eugenics” your personal view? Because I can’t find this claim in your linked comments besides Ben Millwood’s feelings that this could produce negative reactions.
Millwood’s concerns are fine and welcome, but your comment seems much much stronger. Do we want to encourage a norm that stops discussions/projects, because in a contrived, remote way, these could lead to people slipping in implausible, extremely negative associations (often to the disadvantage of conservative viewpoints, since the coastal left is heavily over represented in EA?)
You say the initial presentation of the idea is “dishonest”, but it’s not clear why? You state their agenda is the mission of reducing animal suffering, and then you state that this ignores flow through effects. That is not dishonesty.
Charity Entrepreneurship has developed literal standout EA charities including LEEP, which is actively promoted Will MacAskill, and Fortify Health, which is funded by GiveWell. Both of these improve the welfare, almost solely, of people in developing countries.
This takes vast amounts of effort and dedication. Both Karolina and Joey, and many members of the team, have worked and developed deep competencies in developing countries.
It seems like family planning would be more along these lines of CE’s work, instead of some covert eugenics program?
Do anyone here think that a full analysis of (checks notes) “existential risks, wild animal suffering, or long run growth, or population ethics”, especially to the degree that it would satisfy EA forum discussion norms, is a going to be practical use of time, when they could create more charities?
There is a lot going on here, but basically none of these concerns are mainstream (so generally are neglected from an EA standpoint).
On the other hand, family planning and access to contraception seems to be almost universally conventional promoted because it empowers women and reduces poverty.
For example, see https://www.unfpa.org/family-planning:
Sorry, perhaps I should have been more clear. I think there are two core issues:
Honesty:
Promoting a intervention based on analysis X (e.g. neonatal health) when the actual reason you believe in it is Y (animal welfare), and being intentionally misleading about this fact.
Flow-through:
Analyzing in depth one positive flow-through effect (animal welfare) but not other flow through effects that plausibly are very large and negative (e.g. existential risk, wild animal welfare, growth, population ethics). (Unless there is unpublished research on this subject, hence my asking).
I don’t have any principled objection to doing unpopular things; there are many EAs doing potentially unpopular things in an epistemically principled way without actively misleading people.
It’s not a crux for me so I don’t want to go to deeply into this point, but I don’t think it is that implausible that normal people might connect ‘we want to reduce populations in the third world’ with ‘eugenics’.
Yes, if it is plausible that an analysis could suggest that, all things considered, creating a specific charity is a bad idea, then some of the analysis you do before creating that charity should be on those considerations. Or, you could skip the analysis and create some other charity that does not require such research.