Perhaps we could promote the questions:
‘How can I help facilitate the most good?’, or
‘How can I support the most good?’
and not the question:
‘How can I do the most good?’
Similar reframes might acknowledge that some efforts help facilitate large benefits, while also acknowledging all do-gooding efforts are ultimately co-dependent, not simply additive*? I like the aims of both of you, including here and here, to capture both insights.
(*I’m sceptical of the simplification that “some people are doing far more than others”. Building on Owen’s example, any impact of ‘heavy lifting’ theoretical physicists seems unavoidably co-dependent on people birthing and raising them, food and medical systems keeping them alive, research systems making their research doable/credible/usable, people not misusing their research to make atomic weapons, etc. This echos the points made in the ‘conceptual problem’ part of the post)
Pretty striking that “those who prioritize neartermist causes more reported being more concerned across all questions”
Also that mildly EA-engaged people more agreed the community should look very different in response to the FTX crisis, while more EA-engaged people more disagreed
Suggests community will shift away from ‘big tent’ effective altruism and towards a more longtermist and hardcore community if it avoids reform?