If I can pull this thread...you previously wrote, “Maybe I have more faith in the market here than you do, but I do think that technical & scientific & economic advancement do in fact have a tendency to not only make everywhere better, but permanently so.”
In your opinion, is this an argument in favor of prioritizing pushing both EA money and people into communities like SV that are high-impact in terms of technological advancement?
I didn’t realize there was a resource out there to make these works more accessible. That’s awesome!
I’ve been meaning to write a post about how Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France” should be required reading for anyone who wants to change the world. I wish I had read it before joining an (ultimately doomed) effort to promote human rights and democracy in a country where the average person can’t read. In hindsight, investing in literacy would’ve been a better use of our time.
Ouch that’s rough. I honestly think every Westerner working in global poverty/health should have to spend a month living in a low-trust society. The corruption and nepotism/tribalism I saw every day were astonishing to my sheltered eyes. It makes me wonder how any overseas org can accurately assess their impact, given the challenges in tracking money and goods, and confirming if they actually make it to their intended recipients.
Hey @Larks sorry for the delay. I wanted to touch base with one of my old colleagues to make sure I’m remembering everything correctly from 10+ years ago.
Yes, our plan did have a lot of weight on training key locals that we took on as employees (notably lawyers, but also a journalist and a few other “civil society” figures). I was involved in some of the hiring process, and we were very up front about wanting people who were committed for the long-term.
If we had known that the average person was going to get a visa and leave in a few years, I don’t think we would have reduced the training investment, but would have tried to find a way to screen for people who would genuinely stick around. For example, we spent a lot of time stiff-arming a local government official’s demands to hire his nephew. (Definitely a bad look for a human rights org to be doing nepotistic favors.) But apparently the official and his nephew are pretty firmly rooted in the country, so maybe it would’ve been an OK long-term investment? No easy answers I’m afraid.
From my rationality-married-with-emotion-and-values human brain, I agree with you. Evil indeed.
That said, I can see a dystopian future where Hyper-Rationalist Bot makes all decisions, and decides that “the greatest good for the greatest number” is best served by keeping human capital in the developing world, using the EA logic that capital in the developing world creates more utility than the same capital in the developed world. (In fact, HRB thinks we should send capable people from the developed world to the developing world to accelerate utility growth even more.)
Folks, I appreciate that this is an issue a lot of people are emotionally invested in. And I want to thank @NickLaing and @Tym for their substantive and carefully considered comments.
I do want to reiterate the question I asked at the end—Has anyone encountered formal policies (perhaps in HR?) about matters like this?
One of my favorite tongue-in-cheek reviews of the rationalist community is “STEM nerds discovering philosophy.” I’m the other way around—a philosophy and theology nerd who is discovering STEM. My priors suggest there are no easy answers, and you will struggle with big questions like your post throughout your life.
In Christian theology, there are sins of commission and sins of omission (“We confess that we have sinned against you in thought, word, and deed, by what we have done, and by what we have left undone.”) Singer’s idea that you can be morally at fault for doing nothing is quite an old idea.
Yet...the same book that introduces the Parable of the Good Samartian and answers “Who is my neighbor?” in the most expansive way possible, also says this:
“But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” 1 Timothy 5:8
IMO, EA is somewhat of a “luxury belief,” in the sense that it’s something one should engage in after the basic necessities of life are met. Maslow’s hierarchy applies at all times.
Speaking as a conservative EA, I often feel uneasy about advocating for public funds. I believe that taxpayer money is semi-sacred, given by my fellow citizens in the trust that it will be spent responsibly and frugally in the service of our society. Taxes are for our essentials—roads, schools, courts, etc. What’s non-essential should remain in the pockets of citizens, to enable their own vision of The Good and the pursuit of utility.
That’s why I love when EAs talk about earn to give and other ways to direct non-taxpayer funds toward EA goals. There’s a lot of opportunity for narrative-making there that would appeal to conservatives. A scrappy EA hustles hard to donate his/her personal wealth to causes that are maybe a bit unusual, but he’s passionate about. Many conservatives would respect that, even if it’s for something like shrimp welfare.
I appreciate this kind of outside the norm framing. Similarly, I’ve found myself wondering about the carbon impact of tariffs. Would the decrease in long-distance shipping be offset by the redundancy of having a factory in the US making the same widget made in China? I suspect there’s parallels with covid disruption to the global supply chain, to include the kind of economic impact you’re analyzing here.
It does seem like EA as a movement has matured (or maybe, less charitably, ossified) in what to focus on and how to approach it. In some ways that’s good, but I also see how having a less nebulous/freewheeling debate makes it easier for people to see where the focus is, and to decide it’s not interesting.
Perhaps this is similar to how Obama had very high approval ratings in his earliest days, when he was a blank canvas everyone projected their hopes and dreams onto. Then as he inevitably started making policies and choosing what to focus on, his approval rating slipped as initial supporters realized he wasn’t going to pursue free college, single-payer healthcare, etc.
This is a courageous post, and I commend you for it. I aspire to the level of open reflection and dispassionate analysis you’ve displayed here.
I’m fairly new on the forum, and am trying to decide if I should go all-in on EA or remain on the outside looking in. This vignette resonated with me:
As one MP put it: “I have to show my party how this will benefit our country”.
I’m a (small-r) republican and an ardent believer in my country’s social contract. I find myself agreeing with the MP—there’s usually an expectation that good stewardship of taxpayer money means using it in a way that primarily benefits citizens and/or the national interest. Despite my EA interest, I’m a tad uncomfortable advocating for public funds to be diverted in a way that provides no tangible benefits to the society providing it (unless there’s an explicit democratic mandate to do so).
That’s why I love the idea of earn to give and other forms of private EA money, even though I’m aware that 1% of a Western country’s budget earmarked for foreign aid is likely substantially more money than all but the richest donors can chip in.
I’m curious about what your next steps are, and I wish you all the best.
Hi, I’m Will from the USA. I’ve been working in cyber security for about 15 years, and am at the point in my career where I’m moving from middle management to more senior roles.
I’ve been lurking the EA forums for about a year, but held off on joining the discussion until now because I had considered myself more EA-adjacent. I’m passionate about a small number of causes in the EA portfolio (mostly related to AI and X-risk) while I’m unmoved by other areas of focus.
I’m dipping my toes in the EA water, and I hope my time here can encourage me to fully hop in the pool. As a side note, I am thrilled to be on an old-school internet forum again!
Good analysis.
One of the reasons why I chose Prohibition is because it’s a failed policy. A successful policy like the abolition of slavery introduces more potential for cognitive bias, like the tendency to view successful policies as inevitable or to support a position because of its success (“They like the strong horse.”)
I like to think that I would’ve been pro-abolition. But you’re right, I don’t know whether 19thC me would’ve considered slavery a tractable issue. I also think there would’ve been a values call at some point, when it became clear the only path to abolition was via organized violence (war). Now I’m curious about how abolitionist pacifist groups like the Quakers addressed the topic. I’m going to squeeze that into my research this week.