Hide table of contents

As an active member from Mexico and partially based there and as the director of an organization in Latin America, I would like to initiate a discussion on the factors to consider when establishing coworking spaces in LMICs, particularly in Mexico

I am convinced of the significant value that emerging communities gain from having the opportunity to interact with the international community. The fellowship organized in Mexico in 2022 demonstrated to me the benefits for people from underrepresented communities and the impact on their careers. 

However, given the process of the recent coworking space proposal in Mexico (not by Mexicans), my impression is that the needs of the local community are not being heard, but maybe I am not understanding which should be the most important thing to take into account, and my bias as a local is too high.

My impression is that the opinion of the locals was not taken into account, which makes me feel very uncomfortable. So, I have several questions that I believe need discussion and may help me to understand the situation better


1. Should EA local members be involved in the decision-making process for establishing and operating what could be the only space in Mexico for contact with the international community, or could this be decided solely by foreign individuals?
2. Should the establishment of new coworking spaces take into account their positive impact on local EA communities, or is it considered too costly and "distracting"?
3. How important is it to consider local culture and context when choosing the most suitable space?
4. For foreigners potentially interested in working in Mexico for a few months, could a space with 20% less comfort and design change your decision?

Regarding the coworking space proposed in Mexico, there have been prior discussions and many of us locals find it unsuitable for work as it is located in a gentrified neighborhood where local people face constant discrimination (This coworking space in particular has to also incidents reported). 

On the other hand, it is a space with many amenities and is popular among some EAs who visit Mexico. 

As the director of an organization in Latin America, with all staff members from Mexico and students from various parts of Latin America, I am interested in the cost of that particular space. Is it accessible for Latin American organizations, or are the prices prohibitive to our budget and priorities, thereby preventing us from working in a space alongside other organizations and EA-aligned individuals? Given the current public prices for the proposed coworking, I would have to allocate at least twice as many resources as I currently do and cut the budget from another area.

Furthermore, from the perspective of external optics, I am unsure if I would be comfortable with my organization being located in that workspace, as it could affect our collaborations with public entities like UNAM (the most important university in Mexico and the second in Latin America) and potentially invite negative criticism like those recently seen at EAGx LATAM and in some Spanish-language media outlets.

I understand that the AI Fellowship is not targeted at people from Mexico and uses this space to prioritize the needs of its program. However, proposing it as the coworking space in Mexico raises the questions mentioned above, and I would appreciate a broader community perspective to make the best decisions. I believe that there are other good options that allow us locals to be included.

-1

3
2

Reactions

3
2
New Answer
New Comment


Comments4
Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

However, given the process of the recent coworking space proposal in Mexico

This link just points directly back to this post - what did you have in mind?

My mistake, now this is the correct link. Thanks for noticing

Creo que es un tema difícil de tratar sin herir susceptibilidades, me he limitado hasta el momento a emitir un comentario, pues quiero que en caso de hacerlo este sea lo mas objetivo posible, y hay algunas situaciones que desconozco. Sin embargo algo que me gusta de Altruismo Eficaz es ver como abordan las situaciones con el único propósito de buscar lo mejor  en un ambiente de respeto.

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
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
Neel Nanda
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
TL;DR Having a good research track record is some evidence of good big-picture takes, but it's weak evidence. Strategic thinking is hard, and requires different skills. But people often conflate these skills, leading to excessive deference to researchers in the field, without evidence that that person is good at strategic thinking specifically. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, but it's hard, and you shouldn't assume I succeed! Introduction I often find myself giving talks or Q&As about mechanistic interpretability research. But inevitably, I'll get questions about the big picture: "What's the theory of change for interpretability?", "Is this really going to help with alignment?", "Does any of this matter if we can’t ensure all labs take alignment seriously?". And I think people take my answers to these way too seriously. These are great questions, and I'm happy to try answering them. But I've noticed a bit of a pathology: people seem to assume that because I'm (hopefully!) good at the research, I'm automatically well-qualified to answer these broader strategic questions. I think this is a mistake, a form of undue deference that is both incorrect and unhelpful. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, and I think this makes me better at my job, but this is far from sufficient. Being good at research and being good at high level strategic thinking are just fairly different skillsets! But isn’t someone being good at research strong evidence they’re also good at strategic thinking? I personally think it’s moderate evidence, but far from sufficient. One key factor is that a very hard part of strategic thinking is the lack of feedback. Your reasoning about confusing long-term factors need to extrapolate from past trends and make analogies from things you do understand better, and it can be quite hard to tell if what you're saying is complete bullshit or not. In an empirical science like mechanistic interpretability, however, you can get a lot more fe
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
35
Ivan Burduk
· · 2m read