Inspired by http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
Anonymous or pseudonymous responses encouraged!
Hide table of contents
4
0
0
Reactions
0
0
New Answer
New Comment
2 Answers sorted by
That I've wondered if reducing abortions might be a suitable focus area for EA (more abortions per year in the US than people dying of smoking related illnesses in the US).
That I don't think it's terrible that Trump is President.
4
RomeoStevens
5yAlthough I lean in the direction that Hillary would have been a lower war risk than Trump, the fact that it's at all uncertain is depressing.
2
arikr
5yThanks. Your comment helped me realize that I didn't accurately describe my position. My position is more accurately: I think that most people who think it's terrible that Trump is President are heavily biased by tribal ideology, and that this makes it hard for them to see clearly, and hard for them to realize that they're not seeing clearly.
Comments1
Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 10:37 PM
Due to politicization, I'd expect reducing farm animal suffering/death to be much cheaper/more tractable per animal than reducing abortion is per fetus; choosing abortion as a cause area would also imperil EA's ability to recruit smart people across the political spectrum. I'd guess that saving a fetus would need to be ~100x more important in expectation than saving a farm animal for reducing abortions to be a potential cause area; in an EA framework, what grounds are there for believing that to be true?
Note: It would also be quite costly for EA as a movement to generate a better-researched estimate of the parameters due to the risk of politicizing the movement.