Hide table of contents

Please consider joining an open discussion to explore Civics education as a scalable, cost-effective input to preserving democracy

Where: Workshop House, 1717 15th Street NW, Washington, D.C.
When:  December 12 2024, 6pm – 9pm
Eats:   A vegan meal will be provided
Who:  Individuals with interest in / seeking solution for preserving democracy

Where does an individual's "spark of altruism" come from? In conversations with people engaged in altruistic pursuits, I often find that it came from an early experience contributing to a cause, which drew them bit by bit into later commitment. These first experiences are often quite modest and local to a community. Many people were inspired by examples of social action they encountered in Social Studies and other civics education in school. Civics instruction also offered an understanding of how citizens can engage in government to create positive outcomes. Together, inspiration and understanding helped to build the confidence that their contributions can have substantive impact.

Beyond the potential to grow altruistic participation, how is civics education important to the world's most important cause areas? The impact of most long-term programs – especially those based on science and/or public good – will certainly be realized only in the context of stable democracies. But in the United States and elsewhere, democracy is under threat.

The threat to American democracy is real and present. American democracy is flagged as under “significant threat” according to the Authoritarian Threat Index and the U.S. no longer ranks among the world’s “full democracies” (i.e. Canada, Japan, and most of Western Europe) but among the “flawed democracies…”
(The Economist Democracy Index, 2023)

Preserving democracy requires an educated, engaged citizenry. Involvement in high-quality civics education has been shown to help students discover their agency, equipping them with the knowledge and confidence required to engage.

Why invest in this particular pathway? In our discussion on December 12, we’ll explore the emerging evidence that civics education is a scalable and cost effective input to healthy democracy.

Regarding scale: America’s schools are the best opportunity for sustainable growth of civic engagement; they reach nearly 50 million diverse K-12 students each year. This is where young people learn how their system of government works (and should work), their place in it, and how they can participate. 

On cost-effectiveness: There is dramatic neglect in funding for social studies / civics education. Relative to STEM, civics receives 1/100th the level of per student spending. The differential value of redirecting relatively small levels of funding to civics education may yield disproportionate benefit. 

The discussion will be led by David Ritter. David is in the third act of his 40-year career as an engineer, technology executive and management consultant. He held leadership positions at Oracle Corporation and several start-ups, and was a Partner at The Boston Consulting Group for 18 years. David is committed to the cause of preserving democracy as an essential platform for long-term programs. He serves on the Board of Directors for iCivics, the leading organization that promotes and enables civics education in the United States (iCivics.org). He hopes to better understand how Civics Education may support aspects of the EA mission – as a cost-effective input to preserving democracy, and more broadly in creating more engaged citizens who may take up other specific causes.

Also expected to attend is Shawn Healy. Shawn leads iCivics’ efforts to influence government policy regarding civics education. Learn more about Shawn here:

https://vision.icivics.org/shawn-healy/

For an introduction to the work of iCivics, have a look at this interview with CEO Louise Dube:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?534103-5/louise-dube-importance-civics-education

Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Update: If you'd like to attend, please register here:

https://www.effectivealtruismdc.org/event/democracy-preservation-event-icivics

Walk-ins also welcome.

Further update:

A fully vegan meal will be provided, catered by Pow Pow -- a popular DC venue :).

Please join us if you're interested and able!

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
This work has come out of my Undergraduate dissertation. I haven't shared or discussed these results much before putting this up.  Message me if you'd like the code :) Edit: 16th April. After helpful comments, especially from Geoffrey, I now believe this method only identifies shifts in the happiness scale (not stretches). Have edited to make this clearer. TLDR * Life satisfaction (LS) appears flat over time, despite massive economic growth — the “Easterlin Paradox.” * Some argue that happiness is rising, but we’re reporting it more conservatively — a phenomenon called rescaling. * I test rescaling using long-run German panel data, looking at whether the association between reported happiness and three “get-me-out-of-here” actions (divorce, job resignation, and hospitalisation) changes over time. * If people are getting happier (and rescaling is occuring) the probability of these actions should become less linked to reported LS — but they don’t. * I find little evidence of rescaling. We should probably take self-reported happiness scores at face value. 1. Background: The Happiness Paradox Humans today live longer, richer, and healthier lives in history — yet we seem no seem for it. Self-reported life satisfaction (LS), usually measured on a 0–10 scale, has remained remarkably flatover the last few decades, even in countries like Germany, the UK, China, and India that have experienced huge GDP growth. As Michael Plant has written, the empirical evidence for this is fairly strong. This is the Easterlin Paradox. It is a paradox, because at a point in time, income is strongly linked to happiness, as I've written on the forum before. This should feel uncomfortable for anyone who believes that economic progress should make lives better — including (me) and others in the EA/Progress Studies worlds. Assuming agree on the empirical facts (i.e., self-reported happiness isn't increasing), there are a few potential explanations: * Hedonic adaptation: as life gets
 ·  · 38m read
 · 
In recent months, the CEOs of leading AI companies have grown increasingly confident about rapid progress: * OpenAI's Sam Altman: Shifted from saying in November "the rate of progress continues" to declaring in January "we are now confident we know how to build AGI" * Anthropic's Dario Amodei: Stated in January "I'm more confident than I've ever been that we're close to powerful capabilities... in the next 2-3 years" * Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis: Changed from "as soon as 10 years" in autumn to "probably three to five years away" by January. What explains the shift? Is it just hype? Or could we really have Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)[1] by 2028? In this article, I look at what's driven recent progress, estimate how far those drivers can continue, and explain why they're likely to continue for at least four more years. In particular, while in 2024 progress in LLM chatbots seemed to slow, a new approach started to work: teaching the models to reason using reinforcement learning. In just a year, this let them surpass human PhDs at answering difficult scientific reasoning questions, and achieve expert-level performance on one-hour coding tasks. We don't know how capable AGI will become, but extrapolating the recent rate of progress suggests that, by 2028, we could reach AI models with beyond-human reasoning abilities, expert-level knowledge in every domain, and that can autonomously complete multi-week projects, and progress would likely continue from there.  On this set of software engineering & computer use tasks, in 2020 AI was only able to do tasks that would typically take a human expert a couple of seconds. By 2024, that had risen to almost an hour. If the trend continues, by 2028 it'll reach several weeks.  No longer mere chatbots, these 'agent' models might soon satisfy many people's definitions of AGI — roughly, AI systems that match human performance at most knowledge work (see definition in footnote). This means that, while the compa
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
SUMMARY:  ALLFED is launching an emergency appeal on the EA Forum due to a serious funding shortfall. Without new support, ALLFED will be forced to cut half our budget in the coming months, drastically reducing our capacity to help build global food system resilience for catastrophic scenarios like nuclear winter, a severe pandemic, or infrastructure breakdown. ALLFED is seeking $800,000 over the course of 2025 to sustain its team, continue policy-relevant research, and move forward with pilot projects that could save lives in a catastrophe. As funding priorities shift toward AI safety, we believe resilient food solutions remain a highly cost-effective way to protect the future. If you’re able to support or share this appeal, please visit allfed.info/donate. Donate to ALLFED FULL ARTICLE: I (David Denkenberger) am writing alongside two of my team-mates, as ALLFED’s co-founder, to ask for your support. This is the first time in Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disaster’s (ALLFED’s) 8 year existence that we have reached out on the EA Forum with a direct funding appeal outside of Marginal Funding Week/our annual updates. I am doing so because ALLFED’s funding situation is serious, and because so much of ALLFED’s progress to date has been made possible through the support, feedback, and collaboration of the EA community.  Read our funding appeal At ALLFED, we are deeply grateful to all our supporters, including the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which has provided the majority of our funding for years. At the end of 2024, we learned we would be receiving far less support than expected due to a shift in SFF’s strategic priorities toward AI safety. Without additional funding, ALLFED will need to shrink. I believe the marginal cost effectiveness for improving the future and saving lives of resilience is competitive with AI Safety, even if timelines are short, because of potential AI-induced catastrophes. That is why we are asking people to donate to this emergency appeal