I am an investor. I give out microgrants. I podcast (sometimes with EA aligned thinkers). I angel invest. I make theatre.
More on me: thendobetter.com/links
Ben Yeoh
Karma: 244
This is the whole theory of change behind what the UK charity ShareAction do. While they rarely campaign on EA aligned topics (but cf. climate where they do), they have case studies where it can work. Also, depending on the region/company you do not need much capital to propose a vote (although for some areas you do). Check out here: https://shareaction.org/
Or, I also podcast with the CEO here:
and we chat about the shareholder activism campaigns. Sanjay is knowledgable here—but if you want more on the topics or details on fid duty—and it varies somewhat between US and UK interpretations—for instance—feel free to reach out.
As MaxRa suggest MattLevine has been speaking about this idea from time to time * and so I do think mainstream finance is at least some what aware.
I feel sure you are aware, but in case not, Ellen Quigley has written about this alot (Cambridge centre for existential risks). (I didn’t see her work mentioned as I read your paper, but I read it quite quickly).
eg. https://www.cambridge.org/engage/coe/article-details/5fadc442ad40b800113d6637
And to PRI
Also, Thomas O’Neil is working in this area too. I can connect you if interested.
https://www.universalowner.org/our-story
*I blog briefly on this re: climate standards here: https://www.thendobetter.com/investing/2022/3/27/carbon-standards-notes
Thanks! I will link to a few examples in case of interest:
Larry Temkin with EA critiques: https://www.thendobetter.com/arts/2022/7/24/larry-temkin-transitivity-critiques-of-effective-altruism-international-aid-pluralism-podcast
Leopold Aschenbrenner, x-risk, EA: https://www.thendobetter.com/arts/2021/6/22/leopold-aschenbrenner-on-existential-risk-german-culture-valedictorian-efficiency-podcast
and many other random topics, for EAs, this one with Alex Stapp who thinks about the EA framework with his thinktank, Institute for Progress:
For a counterpoint to much of this:
“avoid unstructured interviews, train your interviewers to do structured interviews”
I suggest reading Tyler Cowen / Daniel Gross’s Talent. They argue structured interviews might be fine for low-skill, standard jobs; but for “creative spark”, high impact hires and, or, talent then the meta/challenging/quirky interview—which they talk about is superior.
They argue most of the academic research focused on low skill, standard jobs so not apply to “elite” or any creative spark type of job.
There is much much more—and would summarise more if interested, but it pretty much runs counter to many of your points, but might be aimed at a different thing. That said, I think many EA hires are probably of the Cowen/Gross type.
You might be right in your points, but I found Cowen/Gross interesting. Be well and thanks for writing.
Interesting. Start a new institution and org working on this!
I think this is a good idea. I feel there might be enough for EA adjacent to Progress Studies for this to be a field. I think Tom Westgarth was interested here too and in London you have a small progress cluster.
Thanks that’s very useful context for me. So, eg, my reading if that many EAs would say art charity does not fall under EA thinking.
But, it would be part of wider charity.
You are saying that EA is not making any claims or efforts in wider charity but more specifically on maximising good.
But does EA think wider charity that does not maximise good eg art charity is therefore a waste or it’s not really in EA’s purpose universe so it’s not really relevant.
I link to John in the orginal post (tho on his Fed counter though similar). You can probably mitigate some of John’s and Hester’s (who I also link to) concerns, while still allowing for the data and disclosure part.
If you take the steel man version of those arguments the problem is that investors are not doing enough litigation. as
″
I. Existing rules already cover material climate risks.
Existing rules require companies to disclose material risks regardless of the source or cause of the risk.
″
They both argue that these disclosures are covered by existing regulation. I have some sympathy for this point, as it is meant to be covered. But often—in reality - it is not. Currently we rely on audit/maanager’s judgement that this is a material risk.
The only way to then get the disclosure would be to litigate and claim these are material risks.
The costs part of their argument seem to me to be overstated, but are a true trade-off.
Re: influence of public
Typically, you are correct that individual comments have a low weight. But, I believe the general counts positive/negative are taken into account. Also i) even if there is only a small chance, say 9%, of any one comment have weight—given the cost of a comment is low, it’s still a good return and ii) I do think number of comments does have weight (say, a 79% chance this is true).
Re: TCFD
TCFD does not have legal weight (except where governments/regulators decide to use it as such) and is not as globally influential as the SEC.. So the meta-regulator effect of TCFDs is much lower than the SEC, I’d say close to zero maybe 2% or 3%, if SEC is at least 40% and possibly I’d lean higher.
Re: EU
While EU has more weight than TCFD, it also does not have the same meta-regulator impact as SEC, as US business and economy is more influential and SEC has more global influence on international companies. I’d estimate 5 or 6% at best. There is actually already some EU (and UK) regulation in this respect.
Other meta-regulators...In this sense the IFRS / ISSB work is more influential globally (but has limited weight of law and is technocratic), but still the SEC has the weight of law and is arguably the strongest (for good or bad) of the possible meta-regulators in this area (also the downstream nd upstream effects eg then asking suppliers to audit carbon). The SEC proposals also have (while contested and technocratic ) a partial political legitimacy if they make it though.
I will consider writing up a short template for people this week. So they can consider. Thanks so much for feedback and comments.
I was listening/chatting to the British philosopher, Jonathan Wolff on how to value life. We went through some expected value and cost-benefit theory as applied to philosophy and healthcare spending.
We then came across the challenge of potentially incorporating “society preferences”. For instance, in the UK it seems—from surveys and outreach as well as policy practice—that much more money is spent on pre-term babies and also rare disease healthcare spend then woul dbe suggested by the more “normal” quality adjusted life year (QALY) calculation for eg diabetes treatment.
We didn’t discuss this that much further, but it seems challenging to me that people/society does seem to value some times of health/life differently and to what extent we need to think about that when allocating healthcare or other scare but beneficial sources.
It does seem to me something EA or society has to account for? Or not? And then also how? As revealed preference is tricky here?
Podcast with philosopher here: https://www.thendobetter.com/arts/2021/9/26/jonathan-wolff-valuing-life-philosophy-disability-models-society-of-equals-musical-performance-podcast
I advocate using an “Unconference” format such as Open Space twhich would help with this. I mentioned it to CEA previosuly and they use it in some other settings. As do other EA minded conferences I have heard of.
I’m organising a meet-up. It’s not only EA, but EA and EA-curious people come along. It’s more about getting curious minded thinkers together. Thought i’d leave it here in short form.
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/mingle-for-the-curious-tickets-407058341457
These meet-ups are a small experiment in having interesting chats across investing, arts, long-termism, progress, sustainability, life… it’s a way of cross-pollinating ideas from arts, investing, sustainabililty, theatre, progress, long-termism....
So this re: disabilty is mostly not very EA at all—but at the meta level—it’s very interesting on “social movements”—which is basically EA—so interesting on the learnings from the disability rights movement - cross post: https://www.thendobetter.com/arts/2023/6/5/david-ruebain-disability-protest-movements-law-equality-inclusion-interdependence-podcast
David Ruebain is one of the most thoughtful thinkers I know on disability, equality and the law. He is currently a Pro-Vice Chancellor at the University of Sussex with strategic responsibility for Culture, Equality and Inclusion including dignity and respect. He is an adviser to the football premier league, the former director of legal policy at the equality and human rights commission and has been in the top 25 most influential disabled people in the UK.
We chat on:
Social change seems to come about in a complex way. But peaceful protests seem to have had influence on some social topics. What is the importance of protest? In particular, thinking about the disability rights movement.
David gives insights into his role and view into the UK disability rights movement. The roles of agency and simplicity of message. The comparison with the climate protest movements.
David’s work with the UK football premier league and also the equality commission. What types of policies are successful for equality and diversity. What challenges are structural and what that implies for solutions.
The role of interdependence and that means at the moment. Whether the law can deliver inclusion and what that means.
How ordinary talking about equality seems now vs the 1970s. But how it itself will not be enough for humanity.
“Equality is what we all wanted in the seventies; for those of us who considered ourselves progressive. But now it feels fairly vanilla really as an idea. Equality is simply about level playing fields, with its sort of a zero sum game approach to if two people are in a race, nobody should be unfairly disadvantaged for any relevant consideration, which of course is true. It’s sort of almost unarguable. But it isn’t especially ambitious. … But if we are really to bring about the change which will ensure the survival of the species and other species, it will need more than equality, I think.”
We end on David’s current projects and life advice.
“....do what you need to do to believe in yourself because so many of us don’t or doubt ourselves. That doesn’t mean to say—I think first of all, that knowing there’s nothing profoundly wrong with anyone, including whoever you are. But secondly, knowing that from that perspective you get to learn and evolve; it doesn’t mean you say rigid in the position. So there’s something the risk of sounding like a not very good therapist. There’s something about really believing in yourself…”
Listen below (or wherever you listen to pods) or on video (above or on YouTube) and the transcript is below.
Hi Ann, we recorded it but because of lots events, he wanted to re-record it and then he decided it would be better if we didn’t go public. So I’m sorry but it’s been kept private for the moment. I’m hoping we might revisit some time. Happy to discuss the issues with you some time if interested. (Sorry for slow reply as well as I haven’t logged in for a while).
Thanks for the suppport!
I’d love to hear any lessons learned, and even now good things you think about pods, and things we should avoid.
Ah. In that case, if you’d like the bounty, I think I’d need a little longer explantory write-up whcoh takes into account the carbon cost challenges, and answers some of the questions.. As the above only seems to take into account productivity time while travelling, and not the carbon cost challenge. Also, I’d have to change for the train etc. so I am not sure I’d have any productivity gains, I’m mostly interested in the emissions cost.
Thank that’s very helpful to know. Thanks for the comment!
Thanks that’s my instinct as well, but if anyone wants to dig into the numbers more deeply would be happy for it.
Honestly, when I speak to friends in the wider disability community, the horror in which the Peter Singer viewpoint is taken (and I accept that the perception *might* be worse than what Singer is – I think – trying to say about his views on personhood and suffering; I’m not entirely sure) and the perception that Singer is a founding philosophical father to the EA movement means that EA is very much tainted by that. Nathan has picked up on some of this in his comment.
So the empathy point that Nathan makes does overwhelm, and that’s not even before you enter the discussion that medical models of DALY or QALY etc. are rejected by many in the disability community in favour of social models (or more complex. Cf Tom Shakespeare).
I don’t have super good advice here, perhaps to the extent you may not share Singer’s views on disability, you may want to strongly let disability people you talk with know, as from my conversations that viewpoint taints everything.
You may also try and have some disability people chat on podcasts, or take more seriously their views in discussion. For instance, I’ve not seen an EA discussion paper around the social model of disability.
Still, overall better comms would not be harmful at worst neutral, and increasing empathy, same.