52 karmaJoined Mar 2018


There is often quite a large gap between what these kinds of surveys seem to imply and actual voter behaviour. We see this in climate change all the time. Consider the recent survey that reported that over half of young people think humanity is doomed (with regards to climate change) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-58549373.

Yet we are not seeing a huge surge in support for european green parties.

I'm not sure what's going on with these surveys, but it's an interesting comparison.

To echo the general sentiment, I also want to express my gratitude and appreciation for this talk. I found it warm, inclusive and positive. Thanks!

The examples you provided are fine alternatives :+1:

Interesting, I have the exact opposite intuition! I think calling Eirik a co-founder of EA in Norway is simply a descriptive factually correct statement. He was one of two people that started the first EA group in Norway that subsequently grew into the community it is today.

On the other hand, I don't like to think that the movement has any leaders. It's a community of widely varying views and approaches, united by common values. Actually, EA Norway, which is  the closest you'll find to a formal organisation for EA in Norway, is a democratic membership organisation where the members stake out the priorities and goals of the org every year. The board is elected by the members with a given mandate, and the board are ultimately accountable to the members. I believe there were roughly 400 members last time I checked.

This might be unusual by international EA standards, I've never really reflected on it! It is however normal in scandinavian countries, many organisations and all political parties are run in a similar manner.

I also generally found this podcast encouraging and Sam is an eloquent speaker.

I did however find his characterisation of conventional philanthropic organisations rather strange. He highlights perverse incentives in that organisations would not really want to solve the issue they are ostensibly working on, as it would put them out of business. Although perhaps true in a strict theoretical sense, and there may be some unconscious / systemic drivers of this type of behaviour as well, it seems a very odd thing to focus on. This isn't even what differentiates EA from other philanthropy as far as I can gather (why would this not also apply to EA aligned orgs?). 

Also, I've noticed over the years that Sam has a tendency to label critique and objections as "confusion".  It's become somewhat of a trigger word for me. His opponents are always "confused" and misunderstanding him (which does happen a fair bit in fairness), whereas he himself is never confused about the pushback he receives. I find it does happen that he is in fact the one misunderstanding his opponent.

Just wanted to put that out there, perhaps you'll notice the same thing when listening to Sam in the future :)

We are working on all the strategies you mention in Norway. There was recently a report posted on the potential of CSR (which I imagine is what you mean by "workplace giving") in Norway (http://effective-altruism.com/ea/1js/project_report_on_the_potential_of_norwegian/).

There is also work being done in political action, both on improving the efficiency of our substantial foreign aid budget (~4.4 billion USD in 2017) and some preliminary work on prioritization of future generations.