While I do think there is some merit in the argument that the purchase ultimately yields a net positive, I’m a bit more skeptical than most of the benefits of specialist venues, if you consider all the possible alternatives:
A lot of intellectual work can be done remotely (the EA and rationalist forums being a good example of this)
Ordinary intellectual work which needs in person collaboration can happen in an office
Freer types of intellectual work which need in person collaboration can sometimes be successfully accomplished by just picking a convenient place for people to meet, such as a particular person’s house, a café, or, if you’re lucky enough, a park
And if you need more space and quiet, you can more cheaply rent access to a large house somewhere in the country, in a way that more than offsets the additional costs of transportation, as many companies do for their yearly retreats. (This assumes a rich country such as the UK). In France, for example, it is 15 times more expensive to rent a few square feet of Parisian real state than a whole manor deep in the country.
Unless you need specific equipment, of course, in which case ou definitely require some kind of “lab”.
With that being said, I have a sense that the same purchasing decision would have raised no eyebrows had it been made by the University of Oxford itself. Such decisions are made by the University of Oxford all the time. (Well, perhaps student activists would have found something to protest about it, but it would have been linked to some symbolic matter about the history of the place rather than the financials).
To the extent that the Centre of Effective Altruism is pursuing a long term intellectual project that seeks to study how to do the most good with the same rigor the University of Oxford brings to other endeavours, either you should not be shocked by this, or you should be shocked by the fact that the University of Oxford owns so much real estate. (I am generally more puzzled than shocked about things, so I’ll leave it up to you to determine which angry emotion this evokes.)
This however does not seem to be the case. I am not too familiar with EA institutions, but it seems to me that the Centre of Effective Altruism is more akin to the seat of a movement of people trying to be altruistic in a particular way. As a result, it becomes an organization which—whether inadvertently or not—advertises its own goodness. “We are good, and you should be good like us too”. For a number of complex reasons, people have a mental model that members of a movement of this kind should live in relative frugality and that if they don’t, they are hypocrites. (Perhaps they should live like monks… say, in a religious building made of stone surrounded by lush greenery. But also… it shouldn’t be called an abbey, and they should be poor. Funny creatures aren’t we.)
Not sure what to make of this, but it would seem to have implications for the proper delineation of “intellectual” and “movement” wings of EA, as well as the consideration of optics whenever switching from “is”to “ought” modes.
Perhaps they should live like monks… say, in a religious building made of stone surrounded by lush greenery. But also… it shouldn’t be called an abbey, and they should be poor.
I’m nitpicking, but I think that’s what an abbey is.
While I do think there is some merit in the argument that the purchase ultimately yields a net positive, I’m a bit more skeptical than most of the benefits of specialist venues, if you consider all the possible alternatives:
A lot of intellectual work can be done remotely (the EA and rationalist forums being a good example of this)
Ordinary intellectual work which needs in person collaboration can happen in an office
Freer types of intellectual work which need in person collaboration can sometimes be successfully accomplished by just picking a convenient place for people to meet, such as a particular person’s house, a café, or, if you’re lucky enough, a park
And if you need more space and quiet, you can more cheaply rent access to a large house somewhere in the country, in a way that more than offsets the additional costs of transportation, as many companies do for their yearly retreats. (This assumes a rich country such as the UK). In France, for example, it is 15 times more expensive to rent a few square feet of Parisian real state than a whole manor deep in the country.
Unless you need specific equipment, of course, in which case ou definitely require some kind of “lab”.
With that being said, I have a sense that the same purchasing decision would have raised no eyebrows had it been made by the University of Oxford itself. Such decisions are made by the University of Oxford all the time. (Well, perhaps student activists would have found something to protest about it, but it would have been linked to some symbolic matter about the history of the place rather than the financials).
To the extent that the Centre of Effective Altruism is pursuing a long term intellectual project that seeks to study how to do the most good with the same rigor the University of Oxford brings to other endeavours, either you should not be shocked by this, or you should be shocked by the fact that the University of Oxford owns so much real estate. (I am generally more puzzled than shocked about things, so I’ll leave it up to you to determine which angry emotion this evokes.)
This however does not seem to be the case. I am not too familiar with EA institutions, but it seems to me that the Centre of Effective Altruism is more akin to the seat of a movement of people trying to be altruistic in a particular way. As a result, it becomes an organization which—whether inadvertently or not—advertises its own goodness. “We are good, and you should be good like us too”. For a number of complex reasons, people have a mental model that members of a movement of this kind should live in relative frugality and that if they don’t, they are hypocrites. (Perhaps they should live like monks… say, in a religious building made of stone surrounded by lush greenery. But also… it shouldn’t be called an abbey, and they should be poor. Funny creatures aren’t we.)
Not sure what to make of this, but it would seem to have implications for the proper delineation of “intellectual” and “movement” wings of EA, as well as the consideration of optics whenever switching from “is”to “ought” modes.
I’m nitpicking, but I think that’s what an abbey is.
Oxford English Dictionary: