Politics, foreign policy, UK & China.
DavidZhang
Karma: 374
Thanks, I’m surprised the UK’s proliferation didn’t get more attention!
Thanks, I think I agree with most of this. I wonder also if the US and others were a bit surprised at how strongly France reacted. As with the Afghanistan withdrawal, I wonder if Biden underestimated the strength of European partners’ feelings. I agree it’s hard to assess how much these things ultimately matter though.
It does seem that, for Australia’s purposes, the nuclear propulsion option is superior to diesel, however I’m sure a key part of opting for nuclear was getting to be in a pact with the US.
Answering my own question here, but this seems like a thoughtful and well-reasoned take:
[Question] EA views on the AUKUS security pact?
Becoming a Member of Parliament: potential routes & impact
Fair point—political wasn’t the right word. I guess it’s more about those issues being about particular countries’ interests in particular historical contexts, whereas nuclear and GMOs feel more like classic cause areas (and are still very live today). Also, I don’t think nuclear and GMOs fall along party political lines.
I guess your point about the USSR raises a question about this example which has been explored in other threads: I don’t think the ideal example is one where the cause is obviously bad (like persecuting Christians), I think it’s something which initially seems good to people reading, but after they find out about what happens when the cause is pursued, they realise it’s wrong. Hence why plastic straws is probably a better example than religious persecution / Communism, because people are unlikely to have a priori negative opinions about it.
Thanks! I had considered things like this, but I’m not sure how well it illustrates the cause prioritisation point as in many ways these feel like the same cause (blindness) but different interventions, one of which is more effective than the other. I.e. it feels a bit more like a standard PlayPumps case, rather than highlighting the importance of picking the right cause?
Feel free to push back if you disagree—I’m not too sure how tightly defined a ‘cause area’ is, but my general presumption is that it refers to addressing a distinct problem.
I guess one question I would have is whether the campaigners at the time were using good reason and evidence. It’s possible that the information we have now was not available to them, and it’s also possible that it’s a legitimate cause area (i.e. overpopulation is a real concern) even if the means (sterilisation etc.) are clearly wrong. I’m not an expert on this at all but will read up on more recent literature on overpopulation!
Thanks so much—someone else suggested China’s One Child Policy and I think this or a more general point on overpopulation might be where we end up! Really great suggestion. The sterilisation stories are harrowing and I think could really bring the point home.
So I guess the reason is that the example illustrates the importance of cause prioritisation more strongly. It’s the same with PlayPumps: MacAskill could have picked a much better charitable intervention and yet still argued for effectiveness, but this wouldn’t powerfully demonstrate just how important it is to get the intervention right.
I completely agree with your overall point about maximising the good we can do, and other parts of the book will emphasise how important it is to not just settle for ‘good enough’!
Interesting. Without reading into it, I’ve always assumed that Western defences of colonialism (incl. White Man’s Burden) were somewhat disingenuous, i.e. defending something they knew was wrong, or was at least controversial, and the motivations were not altruistic. The ideal case is one where people are being genuinely altruistic but completely miss the mark.
Prohibition is a super interesting one I hadn’t considered, thanks!
GMOs/nuclear power are interesting but I’d suspect it’s unlikely to engage readers’ emotions much. I.e. I doubt they’ll leave thinking ‘wow, what a waste of time to oppose GMOs!’ because there is something quite intuitively unappealing about them. Might be worth a mention though, even if not as the key case study.
The others feel a little bit politicised, even though I agree!
Thanks. The nuclear one is a great example.
We want examples of both prioritisation between causes and prioritisation between interventions, but cases of the latter are far easier to find—like PlayPumps the examples you give. I actually think the former is a more important EA insight: it would probably be more valuable for the world for people/resources to focus on the most pressing cause areas, rather than to do what we currently do more (locally) effectively.
Thanks—do you know of any analysis / data behind your three bullet points which I could point to? Instinctively I agree that the costs almost certainly outweigh the benefits, but I anticipate scepticism from readers!
These are great ideas and exactly along the right lines of what I was looking for. I agree the religious aspect is tricky to navigate, but perhaps being somewhat close to home is useful for readers (i.e. I expect many readers will believe in the apocalypse, but very few would endorse sects who predict specific dates.
Someone on Facebook has also suggested China’s One Child Policy, which is a nice contemporary example, not least because it was reversed this year!
Thanks, ALS is a good suggestion (and I could imagine us using it) but I don’t think it quite meets the ‘PlayPump’ test, in that I doubt readers would go away thinking that ALS is a bad cause area, in the same way that they would think PlayPumps are actually bad. It’s possible that the bar I’m setting is too high, but ideally I want a cause area which people reflect on and think ‘wow, what a waste of time, that’s not worth pursuing at all!’ - but perhaps all the main causes which people focus on are at least somewhat good.
[Question] What are the ‘PlayPumps’ of cause prioritisation?
Hey! I’m not sure I have the right experience or knowledge to make the comparative claim, but it would certainly be worth considering the following:
I’ve heard that international diplomacy (e.g. at the UN) is difficult for an individual to influence, and lots of big decisions come down to domestic considerations anyway
In terms of NGOs, I think advocacy can be a great route, though more impactful if it is aimed at an influential government (the US, EU, UK)
In global terms the UK is a significant player, especially in some priority cause areas—e.g. global health policy, international development, military / great power conflict. You are probably more likely to have influence over these issues from London than from a developing country’s political system.
Whether or not you go for UK or another political system is probably 99% determined by whether you are from the UK. It is very difficult for French people to break into UK politics, and vice versa.
Hope that’s helpful!
Thanks, these are great insights and I hadn’t considered the first before. I’d always assumed one’s impact would improve if one’s MP became a minister (albeit depending on the policy brief), partly because the (very few) friends I know whose MPs were promoted saw their own work become more interesting and important, and some became political advisers. Perhaps a big factor is whether the new minister is allocated spads and whether they promote their parliamentary staff to these roles. I think a lot of spads are former assistants, but that doesn’t imply that assistants to ministers have a good shot at becoming spads (though I still assume they’d have a better shot than pretty much anyone else!). I am considering doing a similar post for political adviser roles though I have less experience in that area.
Thanks Nathan. In terms of briefing MPs, I think my main aim is to shift the debate towards the most important aspects of the deal, from a longer-term and bigger scale perspective. E.g. when Parliament debates AUKUS, it would be a shame if the debate entirely focuses on UK job opportunities from the deal, or French anger, when there are bigger issues of nuclear warfare at play. I guess the theory of change is that this improves the standard of debate which helps politicians make better defence capability decisions in the future.