Read and learn. Then get a high paying job and pay people to be activists.
The marginal effect of one more activist with low social standing and low purchasing power especially with popular causes is near zero. For example I might think that global warming exists, has negative effects and these can be averted by reducing energy consumption. Then I could start nagging my friends about this particular issue, to reduce their energy consumption through ever more inconvenient measures. Or I could study my ass off on physics, chemistry and engineering until I find a way to conveniently reduce energy consumption through some convenient, affordable invention.
Or say there is some issue that needs popular awareness. The marginal effect of this young student nagging his local neighbourhood will be near zero. If he reads and studies he can get in a position to influence policy if that is needed, or build a reputation as a journalist to reach an extremely wide audience, or the student can get in a position with high amount of disposable income to buy ad space in cooperation with an existing organisation supporting the cause.
My argument comes down to time preference. If the marginal value of action now is lower than the time discounted marginal value the student can provide after reading and studying, they should read and study. In other words, any non-emergency should not be dealt with, assuming high return on education.
I close this sleep-deprived comment with a last example. People get in accidents on the road and suffer disabilites or die as a result of that. Activism is then to scour the roads and help these people in case there is an accident. Or one could study and become an EMT, then being able to help better. Or one could become a safety engineer, improve safety measures and have an even greater impact. Or one could become an emergency response manager and having an even greater impact. As we see, the options are only available if the person in question is to be expected to become sufficiently more productive. A first aid course will immensely increase the efficacy of nearly anyone. Though the majority of people lack the dedication to become a high performing medical doctor or emergency response manager.
And as always, if there is an oversupply of high-skilled people, being an activist is more valuable through marginal value argument. Though I am entirely certain that there is an oversupply of activism because activism feels good and learning is a chore for most people.
There’s one benefit in early activism, though: even if it doesn’t have a major impact, it will allow you to credibly signal your interest in the cause and thus network with other people who are active in the field. This may have a considerable impact on your ability to achieve things related to the cause later on.
E.g. when I started getting interested in educational games, I wrote a bunch of blog posts about the topic (as I was studying it), and even though I haven’t yet accomplished anything concrete, those posts helped me get on the radar of a bunch of people in the field who have offered useful advice. Similarly, even though my stint in politics some years back didn’t really accomplish anything concrete, it did net me lots of new contacts who liked what I did do. The early conference articles on AI risk that I wrote weren’t very significant by themselves but they helped me get to know the MIRI-(then SIAI-)folk better, and so on.
Let’s say we are going back in time to the early 2000s to advise Eliezer Yudkowsky on how to address AI risks. Do you think he should have aimed to get a high-paying job and paid someone else to blog about them? Or the Givewell guys—should they have paid some other people to start Givewell? How about Cognito Mentoring?
I think your logic makes sense if there are already competent, knowledgable, articulate, funding-constrained activists for your cause who know how to hire and have a pool of qualified, passionate-for-the-cause candidates they’d love to hire if they had the funds. I’m less sure that your idea is the best if there aren’t already such people. In the same way hiring contractors seems like a bad idea for getting all of the work done for your startup, it seems like a bad idea for getting all of the work done for your nonprofit.
You could think of money and qualified passionate volunteers as being the two reagents in a chemical reaction. Sometimes the limiting reagent is going to be money, sometimes volunteers.
It would be coput to say that I mentioned marginal value and supply. So I will repeat my rule of thumb from the “How valuable is volunteering” thread: If the task at hand is low skill, work more and donate the salary, if the task at hand is high skill, learn more and do it yourself.
You could also become an administrator or fundraiser for activists. There are plenty of roles in non-profits that can make an outsize impact, and many people will be more motivated when they’re working directly for their cause. Also, many people lose their motivation to give substantially to a cause once they actually start getting their paychecks.
Read and learn. Then get a high paying job and pay people to be activists.
The marginal effect of one more activist with low social standing and low purchasing power especially with popular causes is near zero. For example I might think that global warming exists, has negative effects and these can be averted by reducing energy consumption. Then I could start nagging my friends about this particular issue, to reduce their energy consumption through ever more inconvenient measures. Or I could study my ass off on physics, chemistry and engineering until I find a way to conveniently reduce energy consumption through some convenient, affordable invention.
Or say there is some issue that needs popular awareness. The marginal effect of this young student nagging his local neighbourhood will be near zero. If he reads and studies he can get in a position to influence policy if that is needed, or build a reputation as a journalist to reach an extremely wide audience, or the student can get in a position with high amount of disposable income to buy ad space in cooperation with an existing organisation supporting the cause.
My argument comes down to time preference. If the marginal value of action now is lower than the time discounted marginal value the student can provide after reading and studying, they should read and study. In other words, any non-emergency should not be dealt with, assuming high return on education.
I close this sleep-deprived comment with a last example. People get in accidents on the road and suffer disabilites or die as a result of that. Activism is then to scour the roads and help these people in case there is an accident. Or one could study and become an EMT, then being able to help better. Or one could become a safety engineer, improve safety measures and have an even greater impact. Or one could become an emergency response manager and having an even greater impact. As we see, the options are only available if the person in question is to be expected to become sufficiently more productive. A first aid course will immensely increase the efficacy of nearly anyone. Though the majority of people lack the dedication to become a high performing medical doctor or emergency response manager.
And as always, if there is an oversupply of high-skilled people, being an activist is more valuable through marginal value argument. Though I am entirely certain that there is an oversupply of activism because activism feels good and learning is a chore for most people.
There’s one benefit in early activism, though: even if it doesn’t have a major impact, it will allow you to credibly signal your interest in the cause and thus network with other people who are active in the field. This may have a considerable impact on your ability to achieve things related to the cause later on.
E.g. when I started getting interested in educational games, I wrote a bunch of blog posts about the topic (as I was studying it), and even though I haven’t yet accomplished anything concrete, those posts helped me get on the radar of a bunch of people in the field who have offered useful advice. Similarly, even though my stint in politics some years back didn’t really accomplish anything concrete, it did net me lots of new contacts who liked what I did do. The early conference articles on AI risk that I wrote weren’t very significant by themselves but they helped me get to know the MIRI-(then SIAI-)folk better, and so on.
Interesting. This is one more reason for me to start a blog, getting actual exposure at a young age.
Let’s say we are going back in time to the early 2000s to advise Eliezer Yudkowsky on how to address AI risks. Do you think he should have aimed to get a high-paying job and paid someone else to blog about them? Or the Givewell guys—should they have paid some other people to start Givewell? How about Cognito Mentoring?
I think your logic makes sense if there are already competent, knowledgable, articulate, funding-constrained activists for your cause who know how to hire and have a pool of qualified, passionate-for-the-cause candidates they’d love to hire if they had the funds. I’m less sure that your idea is the best if there aren’t already such people. In the same way hiring contractors seems like a bad idea for getting all of the work done for your startup, it seems like a bad idea for getting all of the work done for your nonprofit.
You could think of money and qualified passionate volunteers as being the two reagents in a chemical reaction. Sometimes the limiting reagent is going to be money, sometimes volunteers.
It would be coput to say that I mentioned marginal value and supply. So I will repeat my rule of thumb from the “How valuable is volunteering” thread: If the task at hand is low skill, work more and donate the salary, if the task at hand is high skill, learn more and do it yourself.
Thanks, this is an insightful comment and it largely agrees with my own views.
Well thank you, ackknowledgement feels nice.
You could also become an administrator or fundraiser for activists. There are plenty of roles in non-profits that can make an outsize impact, and many people will be more motivated when they’re working directly for their cause. Also, many people lose their motivation to give substantially to a cause once they actually start getting their paychecks.