Completely agree! I’d also emphasise some really important early donations to Giving What We Can and GCRI. From https://www.gricf.org/annual-report.html
“Summarizing the funding provided by the foundation for 2000-2019:
RESULTS Educational Fund - $682,603 (39%)
Global Catastrophic Risk Institute (c/o Social & Environmental Entrepreneurs) - $326,043 (19%)
Keep Antibiotics Working (c/o Food Animal Concerns Trust) - $135,000 (8%)
Institute for One World Health - $123,100 (7%)
Future of Humanity Institute (c/o Americans for Oxford Inc) - $120,000 (7%)
Knowledge Ecology International - $100,000 (6%)
Health GAP - $66,000 (4%)
Machine Intelligence Research Institute - $55,000 (3%)
Giving What We Can (c/o Centre for Effective Altruism USA Inc) - $50,000 (3%)
Kids International Dental Services - $24,000 (1%)
Total - $1,735,558.04 (100%) ”
Good job Hayden, nice talk.
Have included a paragraph up at the top that hopefully adresses (some of?) your concerns. As it says in the paragraph, thanks for your comments!
“Edit: This argument applies across the political spectrum. One of the best arguments for political party participation is similar to voting i.e. getting a say in the handful of leading political figures. We recommend that effective altruists consider this as a reason to join the party they are politically sympathetic towards in expectation of voting in future leadership contests. We’re involved in the Labour Party—and Labour currently has a leadership election with only a week left to register to participate. So this post focuses on that as an example, and with a hope that if you’re Labour-sympathetic you consider registering to participate. We definitely do not suggest registering to participate if you’re not Labour-sympathetic. Don’t be a ‘hit and run entryist’ (Thanks Greg for the comments!).”
For the avoidance of any doubt: don’t be a “hit and run entryist”, this post is not suggesting such a “scheme”. If you’re “indifferent or hostile to Labour Party politics” then I don’t really know why you’d want to be part of the selection, and don’t recommend you try and join as a member.
The post says “You can always cancel your membership (though of course I’d rather you’d stay a member).” That’s not advocating joining just to cancel—it’s saying you’re not bound in if you change your mind.
Thanks for this. “Haydn Belfield published a report on global catastrophic risk (GCR) preparedness on CSER’s GCR policy blog.”—don’t want to claim credit.
Should be “CSER published a report on how governments can better understand global catastrophic risk (GCR).”
Oh Greg your words bounce like sunbeams and drip like honey
It would be real great if these were hyperlinks...
Would take some time, but might be useful for people gathering EA resources?
Naked Scientists (BBC radio show and podcast) have done a bunch of interviews with CSER researchers:
I was surprised not to see a reference to the main (only?) paper examining this question from an EA/‘longtermist’ perspective:
Natalie Jones, Mark O’Brien, Thomas Ryan. (2018). Representation of future generations in United Kingdom policy-making. Futures.
Which led directly to the creation of the UK All-Party Parliamentary Group for Future Generations (an effort led by Natalie Jones and Tildy Stokes). The APPG is exploring precisely the questions you’ve raised. If you haven’t reached out yet, here’s the email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Really really good to see CEA engaging with and accepting criticism, and showing how it’s trying and is changing policies.
Similar but fewer, cos Seán is a better academic than me. I was aware of upper bound and vulnerable world.