We were trying to answer the question “how do we do the most good with our philanthropy” by asking within our network. That led us to The Life You Can Save, which talked about Givewell.
One of the big challenges with utilitarianism, is that the further the view, the less possible you can predict unintended consequences. Longtermism takes this fault to its max
How does effective altruism overcome this impossible forecasting task?
I support longtermism but don’t feel it in my bones like many EAs. I’m more interested in GHW relative to the community.
I am worried about the welfare of future digital people.
Per the quote some things are practically incommensurate and for that we use world view diversification. https://openphilanthropy.org/research/worldview-diversification/…
But within the views, especially Global Health, they are often very commensurate. Eg many different things impact child mortality
My skepticism is centered on this framing of the argument (which for all I know is a terrible frame, I’m not we’ll read on it.) But I’m pretty suspicious of meaningful measurement in this area. What do you think?
FWIW I think the truth is more complicated.
(I don't speak for EA here; no one does)
I think issues > parties, and most of my work is getting policymakers from both parties to pay attention to important but unsexy problems--e.g. preventing another pandemic.
Isn’t the other problem getting policymakers from both parties to have concern for others outside the nation state? (Global poor, climate, future people, etc) Also, to have concern beyond the next election cycle?