Question: What do the Effective Altruists think is the effect of the inclusion of odd causes on the spread of Effective Altruistic ideas? So, it seems entirely reasonable that most humans can understand the value of anti-poverty initiatives, and the need to seek to be very effective with anti-poverty initiatives. However, causes such as animal suffering, and future/existential risk are considered odd, even among intelligent and educated people, even among highly educated people. Animal suffering as a moral cause relies on utilitarian reasoning that even thoughtful individuals might consider incomplete, or at minimum deeply uncomfortable. Existential risk relies on the agreement with the lines of reasoning put forward by organizations such as MIRI, and at the present point, my impression is that most people, including experts in AI, have not signed onto the idea that AI is this sort of threat.(Note: The point of oddness doesnt rest on the specific calculation of the percent of AI researchers had signed on) An issue that can be argued is that while inclusion of odd causes can increase the profile of those causes, it seems also likely to reduce the plausibility of effective altruism to outsiders looking in. Are the trade-offs made justifiable? Given concern stated earlier about diversity, and the popularity of the latter causes among only a specific subgroup of people(particularly, a relatively small cultural subgroup)
Posted on: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 22:40:07 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015