I appreciate the feedback and I think it's helpful to think about what reference point we're using. I stand by what I'm saying, though, for a few reasons:
1) No cause has any prior claim to the funds, but they're zero-sum, and I think the counterfactual probably is more GH&D funding. Maybe there are funders who are willing to donate only to longtermist causes, but I think the model of a pool of money being split between GH&D/animal welfare and longtermism/x-risk is somewhat fair: e.g., OpenPhil splits its money between these two buckets, and a lot of EAs defer to the "party line." So "watching money get redirected from the Global South to AI researchers" is a true description of much of what's happening. (More indirectly, I also think EA's weirdness and futurism is turns off many people who might otherwise donate to GiveWell. This excellent post provides more detail. I think it's worth thinking about whether packaging global health with futurism and movement-building expenses justified by post hoc Pascalian “BOTECs" really does more good than harm.)
2) Even if you don't buy this, I believe making GH&D the baseline is (at least as I see it—Duncan Sabien says this is true of the drowning child thought experiment too), to some extent, the point of EA. It says "don't pay an extra $5,000/year for rent to get a marginally nicer apartment because the opportunity cost could be saving a life." At least, this ishow Peter Singer frames it in The Life You Can Save, the book that originally got me into EA.
Also, this is basically what GiveWell does by using GiveDirectly as a lower bound that their top charities have to beat. They realize that if the alternative is giving to GD, giving to Malaria Consortium or New Incentives does in practice "redirect money from the wallets of world's poorest villagers." I agree with their framing that this is an appropriate bar to expect their top charities to clear.
I edited the post because I don't want this to distract from the larger message. A few points:
1) The recent TIME article argues that a lot of the misconduct and harassment is related to polyamory in EA. A few quotes:
Three times in one year, she says, men at informal EA gatherings tried to convince her to join these so-called “polycules.” When Gopalakrishnan said she wasn’t interested, she recalls, they would “shame” her or try to pressure her, casting monogamy as a lifestyle governed by jealousy, and polyamory as a more enlightened and rational approach.
Several of the women who spoke to TIME said that the popularity of polyamory within EA fosters an environment in which men—often men who control career opportunities–feel empowered to recruit younger women into uncomfortable sexual relationships.
I'm not saying people can never consent to having multiple partners, but this is not okay. People should not feel pressured into lifestyle choices like these. There needs to be a place in EA for people who want to buy malaria nets and want nothing to do with Berkeley polycules.
2) Keep in mind that these analogies risk trivializing the oppression that the LGBTQ+ community has faced. Gay and queer individuals have faced and continue to face massive discrimination, and being gay is never a choice.
I appreciate the feedback and I think it's helpful to think about what reference point we're using. I stand by what I'm saying, though, for a few reasons:
1) No cause has any prior claim to the funds, but they're zero-sum, and I think the counterfactual probably is more GH&D funding. Maybe there are funders who are willing to donate only to longtermist causes, but I think the model of a pool of money being split between GH&D/animal welfare and longtermism/x-risk is somewhat fair: e.g., OpenPhil splits its money between these two buckets, and a lot of EAs defer to the "party line." So "watching money get redirected from the Global South to AI researchers" is a true description of much of what's happening. (More indirectly, I also think EA's weirdness and futurism is turns off many people who might otherwise donate to GiveWell. This excellent post provides more detail. I think it's worth thinking about whether packaging global health with futurism and movement-building expenses justified by post hoc Pascalian “BOTECs" really does more good than harm.)
2) Even if you don't buy this, I believe making GH&D the baseline is (at least as I see it—Duncan Sabien says this is true of the drowning child thought experiment too), to some extent, the point of EA. It says "don't pay an extra $5,000/year for rent to get a marginally nicer apartment because the opportunity cost could be saving a life." At least, this is how Peter Singer frames it in The Life You Can Save, the book that originally got me into EA.
Also, this is basically what GiveWell does by using GiveDirectly as a lower bound that their top charities have to beat. They realize that if the alternative is giving to GD, giving to Malaria Consortium or New Incentives does in practice "redirect money from the wallets of world's poorest villagers." I agree with their framing that this is an appropriate bar to expect their top charities to clear.
I edited the post because I don't want this to distract from the larger message. A few points:
1) The recent TIME article argues that a lot of the misconduct and harassment is related to polyamory in EA. A few quotes:
I'm not saying people can never consent to having multiple partners, but this is not okay. People should not feel pressured into lifestyle choices like these. There needs to be a place in EA for people who want to buy malaria nets and want nothing to do with Berkeley polycules.
2) Keep in mind that these analogies risk trivializing the oppression that the LGBTQ+ community has faced. Gay and queer individuals have faced and continue to face massive discrimination, and being gay is never a choice.