I think you meant 12pm to 4:30pm. The calendar event currently starts at midnight.

I'm not sure if I expected more positive comments. Some of the comments certainly disagree heavily ("ivory tower BS", "future people don't matter"), but most of the skeptical clusters don't seem to fundamentally disagree with longtermism. Maybe learned helplessness (or Cheems mindset, sure), or something akin to a filter bubble where you learn about global problems but are not exposed to the (admittedly) fringe approaches to solving them. The climate movement is, for example, very good at spreading doom despite a non-catastrophic outlook. I wonder how much future optimism/progress propaganda à la OWID would help to move the opinion of young, liberal, academic people

Hey Trev, certainly an important topic! However, I downvoted because the post doesn't meet the standards I'd like to see from a post.

• Your core argument and claims are packed into fluff which distracted me and made it harder for me to follow.
• You make a lot of (imho) insubstantial claims without backing them up or citing and engaging with any previously published research on that (not very small) field: "wars are sparked when people follow egoistic/convenient motives", the whole EvoPsych claims, etc.
• The conclusions seem vague/not actionable/wrong: "Promote atheism", "realise that status exists", "shame soldiers".

I'd recommend reading more EA forum posts and familiarising yourself with the style of posts that people would like to read before (re)posting tangentially related essays.

Very cool to see! I'd also be interested in the number of belligerent acts in space (deployed military satellites with offensive capabilities, anti-satellite weapon tests etc.), if such numbers aren't too small or too hard to come by.

Very cool to see! I would, however, be quite cautious of infohazards when calling for some areas of biosecurity research and rather consult with experts before publishing such papers.

E.g., "Are there plausible candidate pathogens outside the usual suspects (flu, pox or coronavirus)?" is an exploration of a topic that most EA biosecurity researchers would not like to see circulated widely.

Lovely post, I really enjoyed reading it. I honestly never really cared for having an EA aesthetic because a) many EAs are minimalistic and as long as the logo on shirts etc. is nice, all is well and b) keep your identity small; as long as the arguments are correct and convince the relevant people, you shouldn't even need a name like EA stuck to it.

However, I also totally see the value of an aesthetic and things really are more fun when they look nice. I personally am full on board the solarpunk train (as long as it is only non-sentient plants amidst my industrial complexes)

But still, for now, I still feel like the EA identity should be kept as light as possible although I don't have any good answers for when aesthetics should start to increasingly matter.

I agree! I added the Red teaming wiki tag but since that tag is a mix of meta-discussion and examples, it might also be nice to have a separate tag for red teaming examples.

Ah, that makes sense. I absolutely adore Fine Structrue and Ra but never considered it ratfic (though I don’t know whether Sam Hughes is hanging in rat circles)

Cool, thanks for the analysis! Should you have also looked into the upvote distribution within the categories; are there large differences or are upvotes generally similarly (normally?) distributed?