I work as head of the one on one team for 80,000 Hours. Previously I worked at the Global Priorities Institute, ran Giving What We Can and was a Fund Manager at the Effective Altruism Infrastructure Fund.
Comments here are my own views only, not my present or past employers’, unless otherwise specified.
I really like this idea. It does seem like this kind of inclusivity of who we should care about is a core tenet of effective altruism, and I like that cosmopolitanism is an already accepted term. Coining new terms sometimes seems to be an attempt to skew a debate in your favour by shifting the turf.
On the other hand, I worry that the use might end up being unintentionally misleading. We might be technically right in our use of the word, but I’d have thought that a lot of people would find the use confusing. It feels to me like a word most often used in reference to better integration of different cultures within large cities. If someone said they were a cosmopolitan, to me that conjures up an image of someone concerned predominantly with integration of people into their own country, rather than with helping those on the other side of the world. (Though I might well just not be representative!). I’d have thought one of the problems going on here is that effective altruism is linked to moral cosmopolitanism, but the word is usually used to mean political cosmopolitanism.