After further review, here are the reasons this post failed:

The forum serves as a place of persuasion for why an issue is important, and does not serve as a space to collaborate on solutions related to government policy and social/emotional wellbeing. Therefore, the content of my post appeared low-effort due to lack of details and rhetorical points.

People also associated the ground rules section with riteous behavior that previous people have engaged in.

.............

Before responding to this post, here are some ground rules for the discussion:

  1. This discussion is mainly for EA's in the US. Don't give personal opinions about the politics of a country you don't live in. Offering well-thought-out hypothetical solutions that add to the discussion are fine.

  2. This discussion is strictly for solutions on the following issues.

  3. This discussion is serious. It is not a debate as to whether the following issues are legitimate. If you don't believe these are issues, this discussion is not for you.

3.5. This is discussion is in part to address the negative effects of political propaganda, and is not a place to discuss the political propaganda you believe. This relates to all the common 'isms' 'obias' as well as classism. While classism may be socially acceptable in your community, this discussion is to address it and not promote it. This includes negative attitudes towards people in poverty as well as toxicly positive attitudes towards the availability of resources and economic conditions.

.......

Things are obviously not going well.

On a societal level it's not going well enough for me to be able to try and organize something. At this point I'm concerned that so many people are focused on bare minimum survival needs that they can't implement solutions.

My biggest concerns about our society:

  1. The overall population not getting their basic survival needs met, in the following areas: -food insecurity -housing -healthcare -disability services -domestic violence -community violence

  2. Many politicians are not supporting the interests of the people. Bipartisan legislation isn't passing.

  3. The economy. Cyclical recessions, rising costs of living, stagnant wages, underemployment, and unemployment.

  4. United States Culture, in the areas of: -Narcissism (Social Media, Entertainment Industry, Politics, Academia, Non-Profit Sector) -Workplace abuse -Right wing extremism -Increased support for human rights abuses

4.5. This is impacting Generation Alpha in extreme ways, as public school teachers everywhere are reporting exponential increases in helplessness, violent behavior, poor social skills, and severe mental illness.

  1. Lack of access to information. -the spread of fake news -mass production of low-quality information -search engine algorithm bias -search algorithm bubbles -media-created attentional decrease -emotion-based clickbait

All my ideas on hypothetical solutions are in regards to policy, community organizing, and personal growth. I have fractions of solutions in my head, I'm curious to the thoughts the rest of you are having.

I'm also curious if anyone has ideas on solutions based on if traditional implementation is not possible. From a statistical standpoint I have concerns about the majority of the population being unable to participate in solutions. It seems like people's current go-tos in these situations is violence. In my community there have been riots, arson, shootings, suicides, and generic violence and crime. I'd love to try to come up with effective alternatives.

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