I thought this was really good thanks for writing it. Jason Brennan is a notable smart sceptic of the duty to vote. Do we know what he thinks of this?
Thanks for this - really interesting post! A quick point on the moral hazard worry. I think there is a confusion in many moral hazard arguments between (1) "this intervention would increase risky behaviour", and (2) "this intervention would increase risky behaviour, which would thereby make the net benefits of the intervention too low to be worthwhile or even negative". (2) is the one we should be worried about - in other places, I have tried to call this a 'pernicious moral hazard' to distinguish it from (1) as it is easy to move to quickly from showing that there is a moral hazard to showing that the intervention is a bad idea.
While it is possible that widespread use of N-95 masks would increase risky behaviour, it also seems very unlikely to make the net benefits of the intervention not worthwhile. I have looked at several real world examples of moral hazards and struggled to find a case where the moral hazard effects made the intervention not worthwhile. (One possible exception is improvements in the quality of american football helmets which enabled people to tackle other players with their head, which led to extra concussions.) It doesn't seem plausible that what you propose is a pernicious moral hazard
It also seems like this comment could be made on any post that is not about long-termism, so there doesn't to be anything especially relevant to this post here. If we don't know whether growth is good in the long-term, then we presumably also don't know whether eradicating malaria is either.
Also, I think growth plausibly is good from a long-termist point of view because it shortens the time of perils. It also has lots of beneficial political effects as it prevents zero sum rent seeking and encourages socially valuable activity.
Ok, the post is still labelled as 'front page' in that case, which seems like it should be changed
Before the revamp of the forum, I was asked to take down job ads, but maybe things have changed since then. I personally don't think it would be good for the forum to become a jobs board, since the community already has several places to post jobs.
Very interesting role, but my understanding was that job posts were not meant to be posted on the forum
Also, to clarify we don't recommend a donation to MAPS at this time given their funding situation
Do you think it is a conflict of interest if FP recommends something that a donor of ours has funded in the past? This is a genuine question, and would be curious to hear what other people think
Nice post. adding to your point on conservative funders - it would be good for someone to look into how groups like the Kochs have succeeded.
Yeah, the view that utilities aren't comparable has more legs on preference-satisfactionism than it does on hedonism. On the face it is quite weird to say that the utilities, in the hedonistic sense, are not comparable. Can we compare the utility of a man being tortured with that of a man enjoying watching The Sopranos? DALYs, QALYs and WELLBYs are utility metrics that make utility comparable across people.