In response to EA Forum FAQ
Comment author: adamaero 08 November 2017 04:31:06PM 0 points [-]
In response to comment by adamaero on EA Forum FAQ
Comment author: Julia_Wise 14 November 2017 06:52:02PM 0 points [-]

Sorry it's not working for you! Does it not have a "comment" button that's clickable, or do you click it and nothing happens?

Comment author: Julia_Wise 14 November 2017 05:06:07PM 5 points [-]

This is a random idea: I wonder if the kosher market would be a good place for a plant-based meat company to get started. Since a plant-based meat would be pareve (neither meat nor dairy), it could be combined with dairy, which means customers who keep kosher might have particular interest in plant-based meat replacements.

Comment author: Julia_Wise 27 October 2017 08:42:56PM *  23 points [-]

To speak to the section about EA orgs hiring a diversity & inclusion officer:

That's essentially my role at CEA as Community Liaison, with help from other staff. Some of my work is focused on helping CEA work well for lots of kinds of people, both internally as a workplace and externally in our events and projects for the community.

I also try to be a resource on these topics for other EA orgs, groups, and individuals. I'm very happy to be contacted (julia.wise@centreforeffectivealtruism.org) about anything in this area where I might be able to give information or advice. Some examples of things we've helped with:

  • How to run a "Living on Less" campaign in a way that's respectful of people actually living in poverty
  • How to help a group member who has just experienced a mental health crisis
  • Designing policies for Facebook groups that balance competing needs/wishes from different group members
  • Serving as a contact point for people who have experienced abuse or harassment within the community, either simply to provide support or to also take next steps if the person wishes
  • Promoting pro-social norms through measures like the Guiding Principles of EA.

Edited to add: someone pointed out that I didn't mention confidentiality. I will keep anything you tell me as confidential as you want it to be kept.

Comment author: Julia_Wise 22 September 2017 07:45:19PM 0 points [-]

The author of this piece requested that it be removed.

Comment author: Julia_Wise 22 September 2017 07:44:09PM 0 points [-]

The author of this piece requested that it be removed.

Comment author: [deleted] 22 April 2017 06:09:21PM *  0 points [-]

One small suggestion:

Would you be interested in adding an option to pledge x% above annual/monthly income y (inflation-adjusted), as an additional option which supplements 10%*income pledge?

For example, many people would be interested in pledging to donate everything above certain income level or higher % above certain income level.

Comment author: Julia_Wise 08 August 2017 11:25:27PM 0 points [-]

Sorry I didn't see this earlier.

A few people have taken "the Further Pledge" which is a pledge to donate everything above a certain level. I think for most people, the inflexibility there is a major drawback.

We don't have a preset way of pledging that involves a base percentage and an additional percentage of income beyond a certain level. However, members are welcome to donate more than 10% and can calculate the extra as they wish (for example, my husband and I used to have a system that involved both a base percentage and an additional amount before we switched to a simpler system.)

Comment author: brianwang712 20 July 2017 01:56:28AM 6 points [-]

I think one important reason for optimism that you didn't explicitly mention is the expanding circle of moral concern, a la Peter Singer. Sure, people's behaviors are strongly influenced by laziness/convenience/self-interest, but they are also influenced by their own ethical principles, which in a society-wide sense have generally grown better and more sophisticated over time. For the two examples that you give, factory farming and slavery, your view seems to be that (and correct me if I'm wrong) in the future, people will look for more efficient ways to extract food/labor, and those more efficient ways will happen to involve less suffering; therefore, suffering will decrease in the future. In my head it's the other way around: people are first motivated by their moral concerns, which may then spur them to find efficient technological solutions to these problems. For example, I don't think the cultured meat movement has its roots in trying to find a more cost-effective way to make meat; I think it started off with people genuinely concerned about the suffering of factory-farmed animals. Same with the abolitionist movement to abolish slavery in the US; I don't think industrialization had as much to do with it as people's changing views on ethics.

We reach the same conclusion – that the future is likely to be good – but I think for slightly different reasons.

Comment author: Julia_Wise 21 July 2017 05:37:50PM 7 points [-]

The change in ethical views seems very slow and patchy, though - there are something like 30 million slaves in the world today, compared to 3 million in the US at its peak (I don't know how worldwide numbers have changed over time.)

Comment author: MichaelPlant 10 July 2017 06:32:44PM *  1 point [-]

Thanks for the update. That's helpful.

However, it does seem a bit hard to reconcile GWWC's and 80k's positions on this topic. GWWC (i.e. you) seem to be saying "most EAs care about poverty, so that's what we'll emphasise" whereas 80k (i.e. Ben Todd above) seems to saying "most EAs do (/should?) care about X-risk, so that's what we'll emphasise".

These conclusions seem to be in substantial tension, which itself is may confuse new and old EAs.

Comment author: Julia_Wise 13 July 2017 03:00:39PM 0 points [-]

I edited to clarify that I meant members of GWWC, not EAs in general.

Comment author: MichaelPlant 10 July 2017 01:30:03PM 1 point [-]

And what are your/GWWC's thoughts on moral inclusivity?

Comment author: Julia_Wise 10 July 2017 06:24:58PM *  2 points [-]

For as long as it's the case that most of our members [edited to clarify: GWWC members, not members of the EA community in general] are primarily concerned with global health and development, content on our blog and social media is likely to reflect that to some degree.

But we also aim to be straightforward about our cause-neutrality as a project. For example, our top recommendation for donors is the EA Funds, which are designed to get people thinking about how they want to allocate between different causes rather than defaulting to one.

Comment author: Ben_Todd 08 July 2017 09:00:17PM 16 points [-]

Hi Michael,

I agree the issue of people presenting EA as about global poverty when they actually support other causes is a big problem.

80k stopped doing this in 2014 (not a couple of months ago like you mention), with this post: https://80000hours.org/2014/01/which-cause-is-most-effective-300/ The page you link to listed other causes at least as early as 2015: https://web.archive.org/web/20150911083217/https://80000hours.org/articles/cause-selection/

My understanding is that the GWWC website is in the process of being updated, and the recommendations on where to give are now via the EA Funds, which include 4 cause areas.

These issues take a long-time to fix though. First, it takes a long time to rewrite all your materials. Second, it takes people at least several years to catch up with your views. So, we're going to be stuck with this problem for a while.

In terms of how 80,000 Hours handles it:

Their cause selection choices, which I think they updated a few months ago only really make sense if you adopt total utilitarianism (maximise happiness throughout history of the universe) rather than if you prefer a person-affecting view in population ethics (make people happy, don’t worry about creating happy people) or you just want to focus on the near future (maybe due to uncertainty about what we can do or pure time discounting).

This is a huge topic, but I disagree. Here are some quick reasons.

First, you should value the far future even if you only put some credence on theories like total utilitarianism.

e.g. Someone who had 50% credence in the person affecting view and 50% credence in total utilitarianism, should still place significant value on the far future.

This is a better approximation of our approach - we're not confident in total utilitarianism, but some weight on it due to moral uncertainty.

Second, even if you don't put any value on the far future, it wouldn't completely change our list.

First, the causes are assessed on scale, neglectedness and solvability. Only scale is affected by these value judgements.

Second, scale is (to simplify) assessed on three factors: GDP, QALYs and % xrisk reduction, as here: https://80000hours.org/articles/problem-framework/#how-to-assess-it

Even if you ignore the xrisk reduction column (which I think would be unreasonable due to moral uncertainty), you often find the rankings don't change that much.

E.g. Pandemic risk gets a scale score of 15 because it might pose at xrisk, but if you ignored that, I think the expected annual death toll from pandemics could easily be 1 million per year right now, so it would still get a score of 12. If you think engineered pandemics are likely, you could argue for a higher figure. So, this would move pandemics from being a little more promising than regular global health, to about the same, but it wouldn't dramatically shift the rankings.

I think AI could be similar. It seems like there's a 10%+ chance that AI is developed within the lifetimes of the present generation. Conditional on that, if there's a 10% chance of a disaster, then the expected death toll is 75 million, or 1-2 million per year, which would also give it a score of 12 rather than 15. But it would remain one of the top ranked causes.

I think the choice of promoting EA and global priorities research are even more robust to different value judgements.

We actively point out that the list depends on value judgements, and we provide this quiz to highlight some of the main ones: https://80000hours.org/problem-quiz/

Comment author: Julia_Wise 10 July 2017 01:19:51PM 7 points [-]

Ben's right that we're in the process of updating the GWWC website to better reflect our cause-neutrality.

View more: Next