Dear EA,

I love you. In hindsight, my life before we met looks like it was designed to prepare me for you, like Fate left her fingerprints on so many formative books and conversations. Yet, for all that preparation, when my friend finally introduced us, I almost missed you! "Earning to give-me-a-break, am I right?" I didn't recognize you at first as the one I'd been looking for—I didn't even know I'd been looking. But that encounter made an indelible impression on me, one that eventually demanded a Proper Introduction, this time performed in your own words. At second sight, I could make out the form of the one I am now privileged to know so well.

We survived the usual stages: talking, seeing each other casually, managing a bit of long (inferential) distance. It has been said that love is about changing and being changed—Lord, how I've changed. And you have too! I loved you when CEA was a basement, I loved you in your crypto era, and I'll love you through whatever changes the coming years may bring. 

I will admit, however, that thinking about the future scares me. I don't mean the far future (though I worry about that, too, of course); I mean our future. We're both so young, and there's so much that could go wrong. What if we make mistakes? What if I can't find an impactful job? What if your health (epistemic or otherwise) fails? In this light, our relationship appears quite fragile. All I can do is remind myself that we have weathered many crises together, and every day grants us greater understanding of the challenges that lie ahead and deeper humility with which to meet them.

I also understand you better with each passing year. And that's a relief because, let's face it, loving you is complicated! There's so much to understand. Sometimes I feel like I'll never fully Get You, and then I grow a little jealous toward people who have known you longer or seem to know a different side of you. When I get to thinking this way, I am tempted to pronounce that I am merely "adjacent" to you, but we both know that this would be true only in the sense that a wave is adjacent to the ocean. And you? You make me feel seen in a way I never thought was possible.

I know you've lost people recently. Some expected perfection of you and the company you keep, others missed the Way Things Were so much that they forgot the beauty in the Way Things Are. They insisted that you haven't been yourself lately, but darling, you're only as broken as you think you are. I am no fair weather lover; our honeymoon phase has come and gone, and I am here to stay. As long as you are a part of me, I will be a part of you, and I will continue to take your name.

We tend to talk the most when some Issue requires resolution, but I hope you know that for every day we argue, there are 99 days when I think of you with nothing but fondness. 99 days when I relish your companionship and delight in my memories with you: dancing, traveling the world, reading in the park, raising the next generation, talking late into the night, bouncing a spikeball off Toby Ord's window . . .

I love your tweets, even when they make me cringe, I trust your judgement, even after you buy a castle, and I cherish a meal with you, even when it's a lukewarm bottle of Huel shared in an Oxford train station. When we disagree, I love how you challenge me to refine my map of the world. I am constantly impressed by your boundless empathy, and I am so thankful for everything you've taught me. I love your eccentric friends and rationalist neighbors. My parents like you too, by the way, even if they don't really get what I see in you.

I love you x 99.

Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I'm cringing so hard already fr

(Take my strong upvote, I think people downvoting you don't realize you are the author of the post haha)

Thanks for sharing!

This was nice to read :)

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by