The website looks great! It is worth noting that the applications are only open to people with the legal right to work in the US, as I understand it?
Thanks for the comment.
I agree that not eating meat is a small part of one's potential impact. However, we had fellows in our fellowship who thought eating meat was ok. It seems quite important to argue against this to improve their moral reasoning and get them to take arguments seriously.
I am not sure which curricula include Animal Liberation, but I would think any context in which that is appropriate, this is also.
Cutting that out now, I thought it might have been used in some of the dialogues because it was popular around the time of the first translation into English, which is presumably where we get the turns of phrase from.To be clear, this is a heavily fictionalised account so I'm not trying to accurately depict anyone's views (except Caplan's). What I was going for there was, in a sense, making Caplan's point for him: that there are major limitations on the extent to which philosophy makes you a better person.
I don't at all understand point #7. Are you saying that people who unsuccessfully try to escape NK get sterilised?The net effect is: there are fewer North Koreans within the country, but more North Korean diaspora? It seems very likely to me that having escaped North Koreans would do much more to damage the regime than having the average rebelliousness of the population go slightly down, since advocacy is driven by escapees (e.g. Yeonmi Park). What is the relevance of population ethics? That slightly more future people will exist under this intervention?