I deleted this comment because it had too much personal info
Tyner
Karma: 752
Quick question: in previous media about FTX philanthropy animal issues were mentioned, but I don’t see anything animal related in these links. Is there a separate program that includes animal issues, or has Sam/team decided not to be involved in this space at all? Thanks!
Red Team: Toby Ord states that to safeguard humanity will require ”...new institutions, filled with people of keen intellect and sound judgement, endowed with a substantial budget and real influence over policy” argue this is not the case.
Quote is from The Precipice, page 196.
This subject was discussed by Fai here:
In the comments no one seemed to know of anyone taking on this issue so it seems fully neglected.
Red team: This is not the most important century.
Context: https://www.cold-takes.com/most-important-century/
When discussing the future of humanity Toby Ord states “I find it useful to consider our predicament from humanity’s point of view: casting humanity as a coherent agent, and considering the strategic choices it would make were it sufficiently rational and wise” why might this approach be more misleading than useful?
Quote is from The Precipice, page 188.
To people who have transitioned from private sector to charity/EA type roles:
Did you greatly rework your CV or use pretty much the same one?
Very nice post. It does seem like two of your points are potentially at odds:
>People who are not totally dedicated to EA will make some concession to other selfish or altruistic goals, like having a child, working in academia, living in a specific location, getting fuzzies, etc. If this would make them miss out on a multiplier, their “EA part” should try much harder to avoid this concession, or find a way to still hit the multiplier.
vs.
>Aiming for the minimum of self-care is dangerous.
It seems the “concessions” could fall under the category of self-care.
Thanks for posting. I have a question regarding this passage:
>For example, more than a few EA people of colour I’ve spoken to have expressed discomfort about only donating to maximally effective charities, and this relates directly to their intersectional identity. Being both a part of the wealthy global elite and people of colour, they feel a special obligation to help people within their own communities who are not blessed with the same advantages.
Many people feel a desire to keep donations within whatever they perceive as their community. For example, alumni donate to their college. Former Boy Scouts donate to Boy Scouts. Etc. Are you saying that POC feel this more than other people? If so, is there any evidence to support this idea?
Hi John,
My null hypothesis is that everyone wants to keep donations in their community. Being impartial with regard to time and place and species etc. requires some extra thought or will or persuasion for all of us. I think this is hard for anyone and I am not sure why this would be harder for POC than anyone else. You state it’s plausible for the most privileged to find this easier, which I agree is plausible, but I think you could also make the case that the opposite is plausible.
“Someone who has known discrimination, who has known what it feels like to be disadvantaged and voiceless, will more keenly be able to observe and sympathize with others who are voiceless.” or some such.
You’re suggesting that they feel a “special obligation” so it seems from my perspective that the burden of evidence would rest with you. You stated you don’t have any studies, just conversations. That’s fine, I just don’t find it very convincing so I think the null stands until more evidence comes forth. Cheers.
[Question] Is there a list of causes that have been evaluated and rejected?
This does not seem to be correct. The list you linked for e-books is dated 2017, which partly explains why it has old books. The current NYT list is combined:
https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/combined-print-and-e-book-nonfiction/
Methodology here:
https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/methodology/
Correct me if I’m wrong
This one is great
>This kind of support we can give to each other, it doesn’t cost a penny to give subjective advice
-
I’m not sure if this perspective is helpful but this issue reminds me of a somewhat analogous situation in the Financial Independence Retire Early (FIRE) movement. Originally the focus was on drastically limiting spending, increasing the savings rate to as high as possible, and retiring shockingly young. Then, as time passed some people realized they didn’t want to live in such austerity. Other people found that they could move things along faster by focusing on earning more, instead of spending less. Then there were people who didn’t really want to retire but more like get enough income to be comfortable and then downshift their lifestyles. There were folks who just focused on making as much money as possible and remained in the community even though they were just about getting rich. Then some people sort of stumbled into the movement having made a ton of money on cryptocurrency or Tesla options or whatever...they never really applied any of the principles but still retired early.
With all these changes in the demographics and mindsets of the community I’ve noticed that the subjects discussed and the behavior encouraged has notably changed over the years. It does not look much like what I saw 15 years ago.
Part of the change I’ve seen is that people with different flavors in mind self-select to associate with others that are similar. /r/leanfire separates from /r/fatfire etc. I’m guessing that drift and fragmentation like this are very likely for any group/movement that gets big enough. I don’t know if it is a good or bad thing.
Maybe, does this apply to non-profits?
Thank you for the post. What did you mean by these two things? Can you provide more details or links?
>doing research projects in an EA hub
>joining an 80k career group for people of the same age
Ah thanks...it was not clear to me that these aren’t things that currently exist, cheers
I’m not sure I understand your argument.
Are you saying (a) we have some non-zero ethical obligation to the past? Or (b) we have some non-zero ethical obligation to the past AND many people, specific people, EA, or some other group is not sufficiently meeting that obligation?
Claim (a) seems quite weak, in the sense that just about everyone already agrees. I don’t think I have encountered people suggesting all past should be disavowed. We have a system of wills which very explicitly honors their wishes. Culturally, there are countless examples of people paying deference to ancestors with museums, works of art, naming of children and places etc. etc.
Claim (b) seems to be a bolder claim, and this is what Gwern implies. It does seem that the level of ethical concern for ancestors/past is dropping, but I am not at all convinced that it is dropping too far. If anything I would say that people in the past have been massively too deferential to their ancestors wishes and this downward correction is needed and insufficient. It also seems to me that it takes substantial effort to work against honoring our past selves due to sunk cost and status quo biases.
Thanks for any clarification you can offer. 👍
I’m not sure why several of the responses to this post are suggesting to take the conversation private. I am in a similar situation with Martyna and would like to read these conversations to get some perspective and advice via eaves-dropping. I’m confident there are others.