Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Sharmake1
2
0

The problem here is that crisis and things going wrong dominates the news, and even if all the stories are true and unbiased (Which is at least weakly the case for the mainstream media.), you will still be horribly wrong about what things matter more, or the prevalence of things going wrong.

Combine this with non-prioritization of crisis, and the doomerism bias explains itself.

Reply
See in context
by West
3 min read 11

106

Building effective altruismCommunityExistential riskCriticism of longtermism and existential risk studiesEffective altruism in the mediaLongtermismWilliam MacAskill
Frontpage

We are a small community, but our ideas have the potential to spread far if communicated effectively. Refining our communication means being well calibrated as to how people outside the EA community react to our worldviews. So when MacAskill's article about longtermism was published last month in the NYT, I was pretty interested to see the comment section. I started to count various reactions, got carried away, and ended up going through 300 or so. Below is a numerical summary.

Caveats

  • Selection bias is present. I would guess NYT commenters skew older and liberal.
  • It's possible the comments don't reflect overall sentiment of the article's readers, because people might only feel compelled to comment when they are strongly skeptical, undercounting casually positive readers.
  • Many people signaled they felt positive towards the article and longtermist thinking, but were entirely pessimistic about our future -- basically "This is all well and good, but _". Sometimes it was hard to know whether to tally these as positive or skeptical; I usually went with whichever sentiment was the main focus of the comment.
  • For the most part, this survey doesn't capture ideas people had to help our long term future. Some of those not tallied included better education, fusion power, planting trees, and outlawing social media.

Tallies

  • 60 - Skeptical -- either of longtermism, or our future
    • 20 - Our broken culture prevents us from focusing on the long-term
    • 16 - We're completely doomed, there's no point
    • 7 - We are hard-wired as animals to think short term
    • 7 - Predicting the future is hard; made up numbers
    • 5 - We don't know what future generations will want
    • 5 - We don't even value current lives
    • 3 - I value potential people far less than current people
    • 3 - It's easy to do horrific things in the name of longtermism
    • 2 - This is ivory tower BS
  • 42 - Generally positive
  • 17 - This is nothing new (most of these comments were either about climate activism or seven generation sustainability)
  • 7 - This planet is not ours / humans don't deserve to survive
  • 7 - We should lower the population
  • 6 - This is all about environmental sustainability
  • 6 - Animals matter too
  • 5 - Republicans are terrible
  • 4 - Reincarnation might be true
  • 3 - We should ease up on technology
  • 2 - Technology will save us
  • 1 - Time travel might be true
  • 1 - Society using carbon is a good thing
  • 1 - This idea is un-American
  • 1 - This is all the fault of boomers
  • 1 - Stop blaming boomers

Takeaways

Overall, I found the responses to be more negative than anticipated. The most common sentiment I saw was utter pessimism, which I worry is a self-fulling prophecy.

There was very little reaction to or discussion about the risks of bioweapons and AI. Many people seemed to substitute concern for our long-term future solely with concern for the environment. This is understandable given the prominence of environmentalism -- it's already top-of-mind for many.

I think people struggled to appreciate the timescale proposed in the article. Many referenced leaving the Earth a better place for their (literal) grandchildren, or for seven generations from now, but not thousands of years.

106

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in

More posts like this

Comments11


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Nathan Young26
6
1

A concept this reminds me of "Cheems[1] mindset". This is the notion that many people just want to say why things will fail in order to justify why they don't have to try.

I'm not sure if this is a useful concept (upvote downvote). I guess I think that something might inspire these people to change their minds, but right now they neither agree nor disagree and aren't doing much. 

I also link this to The Myth of the Rational Voter which suggests that people are rationally irrational. In this example. The readers of the New York Times have a lived experience that not much changes and that most grand plans fail. Of course William MacAskill will not be sucessful. It's very cheap to say so, since they don't deep down expect that to affect anything.

From https://normielisation.substack.com/p/cheems-mindset: 

To be clear, cheems mindset isn’t arguing that a policy is a bad idea because it leads to bad outcomes. A policy like rent control is bad because it leads to lower supply of rental properties and increases prices outside the rent controlled area. On that basis, it would not be cheems mindset to oppose it.

Instead, cheems mindset is automatically dismissing an idea on the basis that it cannot be done, or would be hard to do- it would be cheems mindset to oppose introducing rent control legislation because you were worried about staffing levels in [the housing department], for example.

  1. ^

    The two most famous internet dogs two Shiba Inus who the intnet names Doge and Cheems. Doge (Dogecoin, much wow etc) is brave and strong. Cheems is cowardly and useless.

    I would resize this image if I could. And yes, I know the image resize option exists. But it isn't actually resizing.

Reply
pete12
2
0

Techno pessimism is trendy, snark is trendy, climate doomerism is trendy. There’s also a time honored tradition of using newspaper comment boards specifically for complaining, which predates digital papers (see: letters to the editor). I’d be hard pressed to find anything that moves far off that base rate.

That said, I expected 60/40 positive to negative. This is a super helpful way to see sentiment at a glance and I’d be so excited to see a compilation extended across other articles (ex: the negative Salon piece) and maintained over time.

Reply
West5
1
0

That's a great point. This probably says as much about the psychology of news commenters as it does opinions about longtermism. Comparing comments of different articles would be great for understanding the bias of each. But ultimately, the important messaging questions are probably best answered with proper surveys.

Reply
Bary Levy8
6
4

This reinforces a thought I've had for quite a while: the main advantage of EA is the optimism it brings, and the messaging should incorporate that optimism. "See all these problems in the world? Let's fix them. seriously. Come join us"

Reply
pete3
2
0

Many EAs think there’s a large chance of extinction by 2100, so it’s a qualified optimism at most. Not to rain on your parade - I feel optimism that EA exists and it’s my own optimism that drew me to EA.

Reply
JasperGo7
0
0

I'm not sure if I expected more positive comments. Some of the comments certainly disagree heavily ("ivory tower BS", "future people don't matter"), but most of the skeptical clusters don't seem to fundamentally disagree with longtermism. Maybe learned helplessness (or Cheems mindset, sure), or something akin to a filter bubble where you learn about global problems but are not exposed to the (admittedly) fringe approaches to solving them. The climate movement is, for example, very good at spreading doom despite a non-catastrophic outlook. I wonder how much future optimism/progress propaganda à la OWID would help to move the opinion of young, liberal, academic people

Reply
Fai6
4
0

I saw the 6 "Animals matter too". I am really glad they raised this. (but could they be EAs? I mean some of them seem certainly not EAs judging from their content, but they could fake it)

Reply
Guy Raveh3
0
0

Nice!

Most of the sceptic ideas look quite good to me, except for the doomerism.

These really made me chuckle:

  • 1 - This idea is un-American
  • 1 - This is all the fault of boomers
  • 1 - Stop blaming boomers
Reply
Sharmake1
2
0

The problem here is that crisis and things going wrong dominates the news, and even if all the stories are true and unbiased (Which is at least weakly the case for the mainstream media.), you will still be horribly wrong about what things matter more, or the prevalence of things going wrong.

Combine this with non-prioritization of crisis, and the doomerism bias explains itself.

Reply
One-time pad2
4
0

People should do shit like this more often!

Reply
Nathan Young2
4
0

A summary, you say..

(I like summaries)

Reply
Curated and popular this week
abrahamrowe
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
This is a Draft Amnesty Week draft. It may not be polished, up to my usual standards, fully thought through, or fully fact-checked.  Commenting and feedback guidelines:  I'm posting this to get it out there. I'd love to see comments that take the ideas forward, but criticism of my argument won't be as useful at this time, in part because I won't do any further work on it. This is a post I drafted in November 2023, then updated for an hour in March 2025. I don’t think I’ll ever finish it so I am just leaving it in this draft form for draft amnesty week (I know I'm late). I don’t think it is particularly well calibrated, but mainly just makes a bunch of points that I haven’t seen assembled elsewhere. Please take it as extremely low-confidence and there being a low-likelihood of this post describing these dynamics perfectly. I’ve worked at both EA charities and non-EA charities, and the EA funding landscape is unlike any other I’ve ever been in. This can be good — funders are often willing to take high-risk, high-reward bets on projects that might otherwise never get funded, and the amount of friction for getting funding is significantly lower. But, there is an orientation toward funders (and in particular staff at some major funders), that seems extremely unusual for charitable communities: a high degree of deference to their opinions. As a reference, most other charitable communities I’ve worked in have viewed funders in a much more mixed light. Engaging with them is necessary, yes, but usually funders (including large, thoughtful foundations like Open Philanthropy) are viewed as… an unaligned third party who is instrumentally useful to your organization, but whose opinions on your work should hold relatively little or no weight, given that they are a non-expert on the direct work, and often have bad ideas about how to do what you are doing. I think there are many good reasons to take funders’ perspectives seriously, and I mostly won’t cover these here. But, to
Jim Chapman
 ·  · 12m read
 · 
By Jim Chapman, Linkedin. TL;DR: In 2023, I was a 57-year-old urban planning consultant and non-profit professional with 30 years of leadership experience. After talking with my son about rationality, effective altruism, and AI risks, I decided to pursue a pivot to existential risk reduction work. The last time I had to apply for a job was in 1994. By the end of 2024, I had spent ~740 hours on courses, conferences, meetings with ~140 people, and 21 job applications. I hope that by sharing my experiences, you can gain practical insights, inspiration, and resources to navigate your career transition, especially for those who are later in their career and interested in making an impact in similar fields. I share my experience in 5 sections - sparks, take stock, start, do, meta-learnings, and next steps. [Note - as of 03/05/2025, I am still pursuing my career shift.] Sparks – 2022 During a Saturday bike ride, I admitted to my son, “No, I haven’t heard of effective altruism.” On another ride, I told him, “I'm glad you’re attending the EAGx Berkely conference." Some other time, I said, "Harry Potter and Methods of Rationality sounds interesting. I'll check it out." While playing table tennis, I asked, "What do you mean ChatGPT can't do math? No calculator? Next token prediction?" Around tax-filing time, I responded, "You really think retirement planning is out the window? That only 1 of 2 artificial intelligence futures occurs – humans flourish in a post-scarcity world or humans lose?" These conversations intrigued and concerned me. After many more conversations about rationality, EA, AI risks, and being ready for something new and more impactful, I decided to pivot my career to address my growing concerns about existential risk, particularly AI-related. I am very grateful for those conversations because without them, I am highly confident I would not have spent the last year+ doing that. Take Stock - 2023 I am very concerned about existential risk cause areas in ge
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
Written anonymously because I work in a field where there is a currently low but non-negligible and possibly high future risk of negative consequences for criticizing Trump and Trumpism. This post is an attempt to cobble together some ideas about the current situation in the United States and its impact on EA. I invite discussion on this, not only from Americans, but also those with advocacy experience in countries that are not fully liberal democracies (especially those countries where state capacity is substantial and autocratic repression occurs).  I've deleted a lot of text from this post in various drafts because I find myself getting way too in the weeds discoursing on comparative authoritarian studies, disinformation and misinformation (this is a great intro, though already somewhat outdated), and the dangers of the GOP.[1] I will note that I worry there is still a tendency to view the administration as chaotic and clumsy but retaining some degree of good faith, which strikes me as quite naive.  For the sake of brevity and focus, I will take these two things to be true, and try to hypothesize what they mean for EA. I'm not going to pretend these are ironclad truths, but I'm fairly confident in them.[2]  1. Under Donald Trump, the Republican Party (GOP) is no longer substantially committed to democracy and the rule of law. 1. The GOP will almost certainly continue to engage in measures that test the limits of constitutional rule as long as Trump is alive, and likely after he dies. 2. The Democratic Party will remain constrained by institutional and coalition factors that prevent it from behaving like the GOP. That is, absent overwhelming electoral victories in 2024 and 2026 (and beyond), the Democrats' comparatively greater commitment to rule of law and democracy will prevent systematic purging of the GOP elites responsible for democratic backsliding; while we have not crossed the Rubicon yet, it will get much worse before things get better. 2. T
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
27
Introducing Effective Accountability: Project and Job Search Accountability Groups
2 authors
· · 2m read
0
0
12
AI Safety Collab 2025 - Local Organizer Sign-ups Open
3 authors
· · 2m read
0
0
15
Applications to EAGxCDMX close in a week!
cescorza
· · 2m read
0
0
View more