The risk of having people write about their donation choices online is that discussion devolves in to a flame war. Any such discussions should be conducted with the highest levels of collegiality, to prevent slipping in to the “my cause is better than your cause” degenerate case.
Germantia
Karma: 14
Another, selfish reason to donate to a broad variety of causes is to claim moral authority over people who don’t donate at all. Say you donate mainly to a “fringe” cause area, and some non-EA is hard on you for this. Then you can respond by saying “well I also donate small amounts to a variety of other causes too, including some you would agree with, to avoid getting attached to a particular cause; what are you doing?” At which point the person you’re talking to gets embarrassed if they don’t donate at all.
I’m confused, the Wikipedia page you link to doesn’t quite seem to support what you’re saying:
The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, though it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties.[1][17] According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations “It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine.”[16]
I’m skeptical of this approach given how poorly the Arab Spring ended up working out. I’m skeptical of whether revolutions are a wise idea in general. I think it may be wiser to try to nudge their existing governments towards being more liberal. This approach could include, for example, encouraging EAs in China to join the party their and try to rise through the ranks.
I doubt the EA movement is well positioned to do anything about this in the short term. In the long term, building the EA movement inside Russia and other belligerent countries seems like a really good idea.
A longer-term strategy might to found an organization dedicated to shifting incentives towards politicians in the US, UK, and France towards less bellicose rhetoric and less escalation, and more international compromise.
How about incentives in Russia? I worry somewhat about making Western countries less bellicose while leaving Russia highly bellicose. Mumble mumble nuclear deterrence game theory mumble mumble. The first solution that comes to mind is not always the best one.
Hm, really? I don’t think it’d be a problem for me. Could look in to the research on counterintelligence and double agents.
Of course, I’m just spitballing.