Were in a little bit of a tangent but an interesting one I think. I've heard that idea before about special obligation towards christians, but I've never found it very compelling - less for strict theological reasons and more for emotional, philosophical, and commonsense morality reasons (my common sense may differ from others' of course).
I'm much more moved by the story of the Good Samaritan or Jesus' instruction to care for the least of these than Paul's exhortations.
But I also don't put that much stock in what Paul says relative to other Christians (https://www.modelsandmorality.com/blog/st-paul-was-just-some-guy-so-hes-not-always-right).
Fixed - thanks!
I'm so glad to hear it
That's awesome to hear - it was worth the effort of me writing it up then!
Agreed with harfe's comment - if your goal is just to offset your own emissions then you would probably want to donate a bit less. If you don't fly more than the average American, then probably $20. Veganism might push the number down a little bit too, but like harfe said, the intercontinental flights are a bigger factor.
Of course I wouldn't discourage anyone from donating above and beyond the amount needed to offset their own emissions!
Thanks a lot for writing this up - motivated me to donate to do offsets this year!
thank you! Exactly what I was looking for
I don't think it's taking it off course! Thanks for your perspective
I disagree that the problem of nuclear war is wildly intractable - people have been dealing with the issue more-or-less successfully for 80 years. And based on the Vox article, we are in a time where nuclear issues are relatively more important and more neglected than they were say 20 years ago.To think that there's no organization that can have a meaningful impact on in this time seems unlikely to me. To believe that I think you'd have to believe that no organization in the past 80 years has had much impact on nuclear issues (maybe you do think that and could convince me).I think that a group of EA's thinking about the field from the ground up certainly could help - but don't agree with what I take to be your implication that the only practical way for EAs to have impact on the issue approach the issue afresh. There are so many organizations, academics, and parts of government already focused on nuclear issues. It is a topic that is directly related to national security, which is arguably the most important thing to every government in the world.
I love the EA framework, but I do think there's a tendency for us to think "well nobody has really thought about this issue sensibly until we came along. Good think we're here now." Some amount of arrogance/confidence can be good, but I don't think nuclear security is an issue where this applies.
For sure! Let me know if you want to chat.
On "why high skill immigration", I wrote another blog post on my decision to focus on it:
"I have a strong belief in the importance of immigrants to the US, both as a matter of fact (economically/ culturally/ scientifically) and as a matter of what the US should aspire to be.
Living in Kenya makes this especially salient - it was so easy for me to move here and I think I am doing good. There are so many people here who can’t move to the US, and I think that they would do good.
I think allowing immigration of skilled workers is pretty indisputably good for the US, those individuals, and (more disputably) for the world. This article captures arguments for high-skill immigration quite well.
I personally would be much more in favor of lots more immigration of all kinds - low-skill and refugee as well. But I’m focusing on high-skill immigration since those are politically much tougher issues, high-skill immigration is more important from a scientific / economic progress perspective, and the fact that it seems likely that increased high-skill immigration makes countries more receptive to immigration of all kinds.
A further clarification that I’m saying “immigration” here for simplicity, but I am including temporary residence status that enables people to work (e.g., H1B visas) in the scope of what I am working on."
wow, very poor link-wrangling by me. thank you for catching - fixed now!
I think this is a hugely important issue, and am excited someone else is thinking about it too!
I did a bit of thinking on this last year, and tried for a few months in my spare time to take some action on high-skilled immigration specifically. Ultimately I wasn't able to find anything super tractable for me to work on since I currently live in Kenya (but I was more focused volunteer/part time things, not full time).
I wrote up my conclusions in a blog post here.
In Germany there's this organization Malengo that you could potentially volunteer with. For full-time jobs, Formally and the Institute for Progress seem great. But other than those, I couldn't find much. Institute for Progress has great articles on immigration reform in the US.
I also looked into bothering the US embassy in Kenya to increase their visa processing capacity - I wrote that up here.
I'm happy to chat if you want to talk more over what I saw when I looked into this, or if you find anything worth working on! I'm excited about the potential for progress in this space and am happy to collaborate.