If everyone focused on working in prioritized causes then conditions in the majority of wealthy or economically stable-ish countries would rapidly deteriorate.
EA prioritization is about the best use of additional resources (“at the margin”) given how existing resources are currently allocated, and priorities change as more money or workers get directed to any given cause. Once we reached the ideal number of people working on global poverty reduction or AI safety, for example, the next best thing for someone to work on would become the best thing for them to work on. Eventually, you’d reach a point where working on altruistic projects is no more beneficial for the world than taking an ordinary job. Let me know if this explanation makes sense.
It makes sense but on a practical level I disagree. There would be no way that would happen fast enough for it to work. When people change careers, they have to re-educate themselves on some level. It would also quickly turn into a too-many-hands-in-the-kitchen scenario from so many people joining neglected causes at the exact same time.
Then there’s the issue of there being more problems than people. Many problems become irrelevant over time and the long term ones rise to the top. With billions of problems and EA only focusing on very few at a time, many long term problems would never get solved because they’re too far down the list.
Prioritization falls into the same issue as time management. In the book Algorithms to Live By, (about using math to solve everyday problems) they found no scheduling method to be superior. The best way to be the most productive isn’t by putting time into making a great calendar-the most productive way is to just do it. EA is spending excessive amounts of time deciding what to work on, when the most effective method is to just work on things even if it’s not perfect. If everyone agonized over what the perfect cause to work on is, (their “calenders”) so much would collapse due to decisions taking longer and less work getting done.
EA prioritization is about the best use of additional resources (“at the margin”) given how existing resources are currently allocated, and priorities change as more money or workers get directed to any given cause. Once we reached the ideal number of people working on global poverty reduction or AI safety, for example, the next best thing for someone to work on would become the best thing for them to work on. Eventually, you’d reach a point where working on altruistic projects is no more beneficial for the world than taking an ordinary job. Let me know if this explanation makes sense.
It makes sense but on a practical level I disagree. There would be no way that would happen fast enough for it to work. When people change careers, they have to re-educate themselves on some level. It would also quickly turn into a too-many-hands-in-the-kitchen scenario from so many people joining neglected causes at the exact same time.
Then there’s the issue of there being more problems than people. Many problems become irrelevant over time and the long term ones rise to the top. With billions of problems and EA only focusing on very few at a time, many long term problems would never get solved because they’re too far down the list.
Prioritization falls into the same issue as time management. In the book Algorithms to Live By, (about using math to solve everyday problems) they found no scheduling method to be superior. The best way to be the most productive isn’t by putting time into making a great calendar-the most productive way is to just do it. EA is spending excessive amounts of time deciding what to work on, when the most effective method is to just work on things even if it’s not perfect. If everyone agonized over what the perfect cause to work on is, (their “calenders”) so much would collapse due to decisions taking longer and less work getting done.