This is my personal opinion on the arguments made in the post.
Agree/Like the argument:
Reducing information costs increases network effects.
Having effective charities as shareholders can promote good business practices along with positive incentives (making a profit, so charities have more funds)
Not making strong asks, Ex: Veganism but rather more minor changes, such as switching to poultry from beef, drastically increases the probability of mass adoption, potentially increasing the expected impact.
Disagree/ Unsure/ Would like clarity on:
Labelling of EAs vs common people. I think effective altruism is a question about how to do more good rather than a set of rules that people adopt, which makes them an "EA". Also, I am doubtful about the assumption that people involved with EA are more rational or better at navigating their Biases.
I would really like to see a mathematical model of how the indirect effects of community building or spreading the word lead to a higher expected impact rather than optimising personal behaviour.
Political Candidates are a subjective choice. In my opinion, people will perceive it differently, no matter how unbiased the information is. Agree with spreading factual information but don't think there is a "right" political candidate.
I would love to hear what others think of this. Also, please let me know if there is something I misunderstand about the arguments in the post.
This is my personal opinion on the arguments made in the post.
Agree/Like the argument:
Disagree/ Unsure/ Would like clarity on:
I would love to hear what others think of this. Also, please let me know if there is something I misunderstand about the arguments in the post.