Also, making political improvements is not a core part of EA.
The Swiss EA people did try to get a referenda passed. They engage with the political system.
Getting university cafeterias to be vegan is a political agenda.
It’s just not the classic political agenda that you find in the mainstream political debate.
21st century politics is strange. The story that TV news media tells is still so strong that young people
seem to think that politics is about fighting the battles of their parents instead of fighting their own battles.
maybe you should talk about apolitical egalitarian secular altruism.
That’s no effective catch phrase. You know, EAs actually care about effectiveness ;)
but there is also another thing effective altruists favor that I think is clearly good: they use evidence. We do want evidence-based altruism. Kinda like evidence-based policy.
This is kind of funny. At the Community Weekend in Berlin Jonas spoke about EA movement building and how one should use the label that most effective for a community. Calling it Effective Altruism is a PR move.
I wonder if you can have more political impact through “earning to give” to political causes or through direct political involvement.
I think that largely depends on your skill set. The core political goal should be to get decent people into positions of political power. Maybe some of the people who do today EA movement building also build the kind of skills in the process that they need to run political campaigns in 10 years. Of course at that point they need other EAs to fund their campaigns (at least in the US).
The Swiss folks may have done that. But I think the major organizations, like GiveWell, Giving What We Can, and 80,000 Hours, are focused on apolitical causes like global health, if you judge from their lists of recommended charities.
Also I don’t think there’s any getting around taking a position on mainstream political issues to optimally benefit society. Statistically your income is more influenced by which society you happen to be born in than anything you do. If you believe Acemoglu and Robinson, it’s the institutions that matter for economic growth.
At the Community Weekend in Berlin Jonas spoke about EA movement building and how one is
Huh?
I think that largely depends on your skill set.
It might. (Thank you for giving a data point.) I find myself drawn toward the earning to give route since then you can use your salary to kinda measure impact. You could measure too with seeking political office although that’s not my cup of tea. But with political activism I don’t really see how.
The Swiss folks may have done that. But I think the major organizations, like GiveWell, Giving What We Can, and 80,000 Hours, are focused on apolitical causes like global health, if you judge from their lists of recommended charities.
I don’t think 80,000 hours advice people who seek it’s guidance against going into politics.
GiveWell states that they focus on global health issues because those issues provide a good evidence base.
I think Giving What We Can says that it’s members can make donation to any charity of their choosing.
Statistically your income is more influenced by which society you happen to be born in than anything you do. If you believe Acemoglu and Robinson, it’s the institutions that matter for economic growth.
“Should we do liquid democracy?” is an import question when it comes to designing institutions. It’s not a question that left or right in the traditional sense of those words.
In software design a lot of thought went into structuring information and valuing simplicity. Getting that kind of thinking into law making would do a lot of good but it’s no mainstream topic.
Opposing corn subsidies isn’t a right or left issue. Especially if you do it on the ground that the subsidies make meat too cheap and you want people to eat less meat.
Fighting software patents and patents trolls isn’t a right vs. left issue.
Whether or not you have legal responsibility when you route traffic of other people over your own computer isn’t a right vs. left issue.
Pushing evidence-based policy making isn’t a right vs. left issue.
Ben Goldacre’s fight to get trial data out in the open is highly political in nature. You could label it “socialism” to force big pharma to release their knowledge into the commons but I think that heavily screws with the nature of the conflict. I think that even people who see themselves politically on the right are likely to support Goldacres agenda.
But with political activism I don’t really see how.
What do you mean with “political activism”. The term is frequently used by people who want to signal that they care about an issue but who aren’t willing to actually to something that has political effect.
Saul Alinsky would be someone who thought a lot about how to do political activism. It starts with doing community building. In the EA example that means at this point in time most of the activism resources should go towards internal affairs of the EA movement.
The Swiss EA people did try to get a referenda passed. They engage with the political system. Getting university cafeterias to be vegan is a political agenda.
It’s just not the classic political agenda that you find in the mainstream political debate. 21st century politics is strange. The story that TV news media tells is still so strong that young people seem to think that politics is about fighting the battles of their parents instead of fighting their own battles.
That’s no effective catch phrase. You know, EAs actually care about effectiveness ;)
This is kind of funny. At the Community Weekend in Berlin Jonas spoke about EA movement building and how one should use the label that most effective for a community. Calling it Effective Altruism is a PR move.
I think that largely depends on your skill set. The core political goal should be to get decent people into positions of political power. Maybe some of the people who do today EA movement building also build the kind of skills in the process that they need to run political campaigns in 10 years. Of course at that point they need other EAs to fund their campaigns (at least in the US).
The Swiss folks may have done that. But I think the major organizations, like GiveWell, Giving What We Can, and 80,000 Hours, are focused on apolitical causes like global health, if you judge from their lists of recommended charities.
Also I don’t think there’s any getting around taking a position on mainstream political issues to optimally benefit society. Statistically your income is more influenced by which society you happen to be born in than anything you do. If you believe Acemoglu and Robinson, it’s the institutions that matter for economic growth.
Huh?
It might. (Thank you for giving a data point.) I find myself drawn toward the earning to give route since then you can use your salary to kinda measure impact. You could measure too with seeking political office although that’s not my cup of tea. But with political activism I don’t really see how.
I don’t think 80,000 hours advice people who seek it’s guidance against going into politics.
GiveWell states that they focus on global health issues because those issues provide a good evidence base.
I think Giving What We Can says that it’s members can make donation to any charity of their choosing.
“Should we do liquid democracy?” is an import question when it comes to designing institutions. It’s not a question that left or right in the traditional sense of those words.
In software design a lot of thought went into structuring information and valuing simplicity. Getting that kind of thinking into law making would do a lot of good but it’s no mainstream topic.
Opposing corn subsidies isn’t a right or left issue. Especially if you do it on the ground that the subsidies make meat too cheap and you want people to eat less meat.
Fighting software patents and patents trolls isn’t a right vs. left issue.
Whether or not you have legal responsibility when you route traffic of other people over your own computer isn’t a right vs. left issue.
Pushing evidence-based policy making isn’t a right vs. left issue.
Ben Goldacre’s fight to get trial data out in the open is highly political in nature. You could label it “socialism” to force big pharma to release their knowledge into the commons but I think that heavily screws with the nature of the conflict. I think that even people who see themselves politically on the right are likely to support Goldacres agenda.
What do you mean with “political activism”. The term is frequently used by people who want to signal that they care about an issue but who aren’t willing to actually to something that has political effect.
Saul Alinsky would be someone who thought a lot about how to do political activism. It starts with doing community building. In the EA example that means at this point in time most of the activism resources should go towards internal affairs of the EA movement.
Mainstream political issues are often about what does “optimally benefit society” mean.
I finished that paragraph via editing.