Inspired by http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
Anonymous or pseudonymous responses encouraged!
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).
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.
That I don't think it's terrible that Trump is President.
I'm curious about your reasoning on this. Can you elaborate?
If you want anonymous responses, you might consider adding a link to a Google form or similar.