Hide table of contents

There is an optimization problem within Effective Altruism. The EA movement was born out of the use of data and analysis to optimize charitable giving. This was a magnificent step for the world of humanitarian impact. Yet by focusing on charitable giving, we have neglected other means of making an impact. The EA movement should be examining the question of how to optimize charitable resources to maximize a world that minimizes suffering (…we can workshop that mission statement). 

I have long felt that one of the most impactful yet neglected areas in the EA movement is systemic change through political advocacy. This is an important lever for us to consider.

What does high impact, low cost (I.e. “effective”) political advocacy look like?

One of my favorite models for advancing systemic change comes from another form of systemic change: corporate engagement. The Humane League (THL) has demonstrated how powerful it can be when leveraging consumer voices to create demand for corporate action. In this model, THL mobilizes large numbers of volunteers to take small actions that pressure industry for systemic change. The THL campaigns cost nothing of the volunteers but a couple of minutes to send an email or post a comment on social media. 

There is a similar process in politics; it is called building political will. For changes to the status quo, politicians need to know that they have their constituents’ support, that the political gain outweighs the cost. Coordinating the voice of voters is a powerful policy intervention.  

For many EAs, the time needed to follow politics is too high to make activism worthwhile. Fortunately, a small but growing number of EAs are honing their skills around political advocacy. 

  • Kyle Bogosian’s blog Happiness Politics captures the important role and impact that EAs can make through politics.
  • In 2015 there was a project in the EA DC chapter to analyze high impact + neglected regulations that EAs could weigh in on.
  • Groups like Guarding Against Pandemics, The Good Food Institute, and my own group DC Voters for Animals are leveraging political advocacy to advance their cause areas.
  • There are EAs working within government to increase the impact of federal dollars on improving the state of the world, and EA aligned candidates are even popping up in the political process.

By leveraging the expertise of EA’s political pundits to identify policy opportunities that are neglected, important, and tractable, EA supporters can help move these forward in their respective jurisdiction without sacrificing much time or resources. By emulating corporate engagement models from orgs like THL, we can introduce policy interventions that complement and magnify work being done in various cause areas.

A key tenet of THL’s model is starting small. If calling for changes in welfare for chickens, you do not start with McDonalds. THL would start with the small businesses and work your way up, until you can demonstrate that enough of McDonalds’ peers have adopted the policy that it would be an aberration for even the biggest players to have lower welfare standards. These conditions are the same in politics. Local level politics can pave the way for state, which can pave the way for federal and international. We would not want to start a novel intervention at the federal level. Instead, we can start small. Looking at fur bans, for example, first three cities in California passed fur sales bans. That list has grown to nearly a dozen cities, as well as the state of California and the entire country of Israel. One can imagine that that list will continue to expand. 

What does low cost, high impact action look like in politics?

There are several ways to engage government officials. Of course, traditional lobbying and campaign donations are high leverage, but they are not the only way to move your issue forward. Contact from constituents is key. This can be mobilizing support through calls and emails (personalized, not form emails!), and voting in blocks. And social media is a big one. It is common to use outlets like Facebook, for example, to wage pressure campaigns on companies with lower animal welfare standards. Twitter, however, is a more common platform for political action. The Management Center revealed that an informal survey of Hill staff and members is that it takes an average of 12 tweets to get a member of Congress’ attention on a topic. 

Where are the gaps? 

I want to be clear that I am not advocating for partisan political advocacy—and believe that a further assessment of trade-offs and unintended consequences is warranted. One way to remain true to our cause areas is by focusing on policy and not weighing in on partisan candidates. 

The other challenge is the difficulty of quantifying investments in political advocacy. Not only are the benefits of a policy often hazy, but the policy itself is rarely a sure bet for success. The EA movement is going to have to call upon its deep thinkers to figure out how to translate the analysis that helped us decide that bed nets were a useful intervention, for instance, to apply to uncertain outcomes like policy. Nonetheless, groups are increasingly seeing the case for policy. Founders Pledge has endorsed several organizations known for their climate policy interventions, and Humanity Forward is an EA framed advocacy group on Capitol Hill. 

 

Effective Altruism is evolving to be more than a giving club. While the analysis-backed charitable giving is what motivated me to become an EA, giving is only a tactic, not a goal. The EA movement should be examining the question of how to optimize charitable resources to maximize a world that is livable and minimizes suffering. While giving is extremely extremely important, we should be in vigilant pursuit of every lever for making the world better. That is why we cannot overlook the importance of politics in creating systemic change for public health, artificial intelligence, animal welfare, and a myriad of cause areas. 

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
trammell
 ·  · 25m read
 · 
Introduction When a system is made safer, its users may be willing to offset at least some of the safety improvement by using it more dangerously. A seminal example is that, according to Peltzman (1975), drivers largely compensated for improvements in car safety at the time by driving more dangerously. The phenomenon in general is therefore sometimes known as the “Peltzman Effect”, though it is more often known as “risk compensation”.[1] One domain in which risk compensation has been studied relatively carefully is NASCAR (Sobel and Nesbit, 2007; Pope and Tollison, 2010), where, apparently, the evidence for a large compensation effect is especially strong.[2] In principle, more dangerous usage can partially, fully, or more than fully offset the extent to which the system has been made safer holding usage fixed. Making a system safer thus has an ambiguous effect on the probability of an accident, after its users change their behavior. There’s no reason why risk compensation shouldn’t apply in the existential risk domain, and we arguably have examples in which it has. For example, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) makes AI more reliable, all else equal; so it may be making some AI labs comfortable releasing more capable, and so maybe more dangerous, models than they would release otherwise.[3] Yet risk compensation per se appears to have gotten relatively little formal, public attention in the existential risk community so far. There has been informal discussion of the issue: e.g. risk compensation in the AI risk domain is discussed by Guest et al. (2023), who call it “the dangerous valley problem”. There is also a cluster of papers and works in progress by Robert Trager, Allan Dafoe, Nick Emery-Xu, Mckay Jensen, and others, including these two and some not yet public but largely summarized here, exploring the issue formally in models with multiple competing firms. In a sense what they do goes well beyond this post, but as far as I’m aware none of t
LewisBollard
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
> Despite the setbacks, I'm hopeful about the technology's future ---------------------------------------- It wasn’t meant to go like this. Alternative protein startups that were once soaring are now struggling. Impact investors who were once everywhere are now absent. Banks that confidently predicted 31% annual growth (UBS) and a 2030 global market worth $88-263B (Credit Suisse) have quietly taken down their predictions. This sucks. For many founders and staff this wasn’t just a job, but a calling — an opportunity to work toward a world free of factory farming. For many investors, it wasn’t just an investment, but a bet on a better future. It’s easy to feel frustrated, disillusioned, and even hopeless. It’s also wrong. There’s still plenty of hope for alternative proteins — just on a longer timeline than the unrealistic ones that were once touted. Here are three trends I’m particularly excited about. Better products People are eating less plant-based meat for many reasons, but the simplest one may just be that they don’t like how they taste. “Taste/texture” was the top reason chosen by Brits for reducing their plant-based meat consumption in a recent survey by Bryant Research. US consumers most disliked the “consistency and texture” of plant-based foods in a survey of shoppers at retailer Kroger.  They’ve got a point. In 2018-21, every food giant, meat company, and two-person startup rushed new products to market with minimal product testing. Indeed, the meat companies’ plant-based offerings were bad enough to inspire conspiracy theories that this was a case of the car companies buying up the streetcars.  Consumers noticed. The Bryant Research survey found that two thirds of Brits agreed with the statement “some plant based meat products or brands taste much worse than others.” In a 2021 taste test, 100 consumers rated all five brands of plant-based nuggets as much worse than chicken-based nuggets on taste, texture, and “overall liking.” One silver lining
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from Otherwise. Most people in EA won't find these arguments new. Apologies for leaving out animal welfare entirely for the sake of simplicity. Last month, Emma Goldberg wrote a NYT piece contrasting effective altruism with approaches that refuse to quantify meaningful experiences. The piece indicates that effective altruism is creepily numbers-focused. Goldberg asks “what if charity shouldn’t be optimized?” The egalitarian answer Dylan Matthews gives a try at answering a question in the piece: “How can anyone put a numerical value on a holy space” like Notre Dame cathedral? For the $760 million spent restoring the cathedral, he estimates you could prevent 47,500 deaths from malaria. “47,500 people is about five times the population of the town I grew up in. . . . It’s useful to imagine walking down Main Street, stopping at each table at the diner Lou’s, shaking hands with as many people as you can, and telling them, ‘I think you need to die to make a cathedral pretty.’ And then going to the next town over and doing it again, and again, until you’ve told 47,500 people why they have to die.” Who prefers magnificence? Goldberg’s article draws a lot on author Amy Schiller’s plea to focus charity on “magnificence” rather than effectiveness. Some causes “make people’s lives feel meaningful, radiant, sacred. Think nature conservancies, cultural centers and places of worship. These are institutions that lend life its texture and color, and not just bare bones existence.” But US arts funding goes disproportionately to the most expensive projects, with more than half of the funding going to the most expensive 2% of projects. These are typically museums, classical music groups, and performing arts centers. When donors prioritize giving to communities they already have ties to, the money stays in richer communities. Some areas have way more rich people than others. New York City has 119 billionaires; most African countries have none. Unsurprisingly, Schill