All of Duarte M's Comments + Replies

Good question. The core difference is this:

Forecasting is about assigning probabilities to future events.

Falsification is about testing whether an idea can survive clearly defined attempts to prove it false.

Forecasting asks, how likely is this to happen?

Falsification asks, what would prove this wrong, and has that happened?

This matters because not every meaningful idea resolves cleanly into a forecastable event.

For example, “UBI reduces crime” or “MoND is a better fit than dark matter at low accelerations” are not yes-or-no outcomes with clean resolution d... (read more)

This is the first decent post I’ve read on the subject on this forum. Thank you, it gives me hope that EA has not completely lost the plot when it comes to the intersection between animal advocacy and diet.

I would add that for those of us that eat a Mediterranean diet, Veganism presents a significant trade-off in terms of diet quality.

For those of us in Southern Europe, it also has a trade-off on environmental impact due to the nature of agro-silvo-pastoralism here (although that is outside of the scope of a mere forum comment).

Excellent to see the U.K. take a leading role in this, and seeing the political narrative finally shift from just climate change and occasionally sprinkles of pandemics and nuclear war, to all kinds of X risk.

This is really fantastic news overall! 👏

Not sure on the dehorning and beak trimming though, that sounds like virtue signalling more so than an evidence based policy.

Not sure dehorning would be a good thing considering the deaths and mutilations caused by animals using their horns.

Great post!

I must say, this anxiety is what happens when people adopt Utilitarianism as a moral philosophy instead of the actual goal of EA - to donate a certain % of first world incomes in an effective way. The jump to “maximise utility always” is one that can only lead to paralysis, anxiety, and nihilism, as many more capable than me have pointed out.

Thanks for sharing. This is an example of why naive utilitarianism can be harmful. EA needs to more clearly adopt a framework with duties of care, and personal rights. I dare call it “common sense ethics”.

I would add that having children in the West is a huge net good on society, even if that means fewer shrimp have their welfare improved. (We can think about EY’s argument on hiccups here)

The economy is a positive sum game, meaning children add more than they take, and there simply would be no wealth to distribute otherwise. If we think on a long enough time horizon, the only way to improve everyone’s welfare significantly is by having more children in productive areas.

Agreed. The “KPI” here should be welfare, not deaths.

Salmon is a carnivorous fish which means that choosing salmon instead of live carp could cause more animals to die.

This is more or less irrelevant if those deaths cause no suffering.

Still, very interesting analysis. Thanks for sharing OP.

I completely agree with this. As a (Americans read: neo) Liberal that thinks the Green movement does far more harm than good, some of the political campaigning I’ve seen EAs do really puts me off and makes me question the entire movement. SBF’s lobbying of politicians in the US is another example of egregious misuse of funds.

Until those checks and balances are in place, we should be focusing on directing funds to the most impactful causes. That should be the beginning and end of EA in my opinion. Politics is almost never the best ROI approach to anything, ... (read more)

I very much doubt the reason it’s won’t be made privately available is due to Pfizer thinking it wouldn’t be worth it. More likely it’s down to sufficient stock being available in the NHS for the cohort that will be receiving it, and the government not wanting to add more demand, which would increase the cost per dose for the NHS.

It’s perverse, but a likely consequence of the Beveridge style universal healthcare system used in the U.K.

Other places in Europe will certainly provide it.

Muito interessante! Obrigado pela partilha. Têm orçamento da Open Philanthropy para contratar mais tradutores ou é tudo com base em voluntariado?

I’m all for diversity of thought, but I really hope EA doesn’t become a vehicle for the ideas stemming from critical social science.

These diatribes against agriculture in the EA movement really sadden me.

One thing this piece has not considered is the physical possibility of agriculture without animals. Specifically with regards to the nitrogen cycle.

It also doesn’t consider agro-silvo-pastoralism, or the downsides of eliminating all forms of animal agriculture on ecosystems, especially those suffering from increased desertification due to climate change.

Finally, this text doesn’t seriously consider agricultural systems which are clearly a net positive from a consequentialist point of v... (read more)

This is excellent, thank you for your research.

Even setting aside the organic argument, an insistence on extensive agricultural alone is also negative for the environment due to the lower output per hectare. Lots of literature has been written on this.

TL;DR: This initiative would have led to bad consequences and the EA movement needs to be more evidence-based when it comes to animal agriculture. I leave a few suggestions to improve animal welfare more effectively below.
 

​​In my opinion, this topic is the one where the Effective Altruism movement is the most in its ivory tower still. Everything I've read on this topic by the EA community, like Peter Singer's Animal Liberation or the chapter dedicated to it in What We Owe The Future showcases a total separation from reality. I think we're all on boar... (read more)

What if we have two native tongues?

This is so cool. A few ideas which I’m not fit to write:

• Next generation Geothermal https://elidourado.com/blog/geothermal/

• Policy and technological advancements to increase residential construction in the U.K.

• Research on the best health system models

• Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion

• Oscillating water column technology (wave energy)

• Digitisation and simplification of government services/law (a la Estonia and Próspera)

• Drug regulation reciprocity

Just a shame it’s during working hours! All the best with the event.

Apologies for the basic question but, if there’s more money allocated than there are effective projects, should those of us earning to give start funding less effective charities? Is there a ranking with effectiveness and funding % we can sort by?

This is a pretty interesting read: https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-practice/slaughter-stunning_en