i appreciate the comment but im not going to reply much cuz i think i addressed most of ur points above and seems like no one here wants to hear it.
Lot of good points that I'm glad I get the opportunity to address.
"People have been arguing about religion for hundreds if not thousands of years."
People have also been trying to perfect the field of medicine for thousands of years and have relatively recently made great strides. Of course physical sciences aren't analogous to religious apologetics, but some innovations (e.g. increased literacy, unprecedented communication tech like email, internet access, instant translations, etc.) may really also accelerate progress now more than ever. As I said in the essay, I don't know if those advancements will be enough but I think it's well worth trying to find out.
"why you would think EA is particularly well positioned"
EA may be most motivated to figure out HOW to do the most good (and avoid suboptimal opportunities). And I don't know anyone else that might be willing and open minded enough to take on this challenge.
"The sort of "fair trial" you propose sounds extremely alienating to religious people"
Yup, which is why I'm not really pitching my proposal to them. I also feel no need to make this research public or affiliated with the larger EA community or try to convert people who are already attached to a particular ideology or religion. Hope that addresses this concern:
"I'm not religious myself but I'm glad that EA is working on building common ground with people across different religions... This seems like it would burn those bridges to no good end."
"to no good end" seems presemptous for the reasons I explained in the Importance section but if that's lacking plz lmk. And either way thanks a lot for your thought provoking comment
this event was great, thank you rocky and alex for setting it up
Thanks for the update mate. Does this increased selectivity affect just longtermist grants and/or grants from EA funders other than OpenPhil?
Hi, quick question.
When you wrote that "After consulting with researchers in the space, we temporarily assumed that shrimp are of equal moral significance to chickens due to a lack of consensus on the issue."
Did you mean that all consumed shrimp are morally equivalent to all farmed chickens or that shrimp are equivalent to chickens on an individual level?
Btw I checked this out thanks to a 80K podcast with Zorrilla and glad I did. It's a really interesting field and I hope yall succeed.
Although I'd prefer if Soares and Sam Altman saw eye to eye, I think it's inspiring that Altman seems to be soliciting criticism.
Wouldn't it be cool if other cause areas worked like that (e.g. wouldn't it be amazing if industrial animal agriculture consulted Animal Charity Evaluators before opening up factory farms?).
"Frankly we think that if..." on the page with the scale and people on it. Who are yall and why should I care?
I liked the examples of moral circle expansion from romans and disabled.
Thank you very much for doing your best and sorry about not being clearer in my first draft. I really appreciate your comments, they have definitely helped me clarify this essay. I'm sorry I was harsh in my last comment (I deleted the harsh parts).
"I will say that some... The two communities could help each other."
I agree. As I mentioned in my essay, there is considerable overlap in EA and religion.
Here's a quote I like but didn't get a chance to mention:
"But, curiously, religious commitment and effective altruism are united in telling us we should not serve mammon. They are united in claiming that the ordinary, 21st-century American and Western European way of living has gone drastically wrong, and that we need to create a different way of living from the ground up. They are united in thinking that people who are not part of our everyday social group should occupy a much larger part of our concern. They are united in thinking that our focus should be on others rather than on ourselves, not just part of the time, but as a way of life."
Source: “Effective Altruism and Religion Synergies, Tensions, Dialogue” edited by D. Roser et. al; published 2022; accessible at https://philarchive.org/archive/RIEEAA-3
I get the feeling you might like this book and thanks again for your feedback!