I'm not sure about this particular case, but I don't think the value of the property increasing over time is a generally good argument for why investments need not be publicly discussed. A lot of potential altruistic spending has benefits that accrue over time, where the benefits of money spent earlier outweighs the benefits of money spent later - as has been discussed extensively when comparing giving now vs. giving later.
The whole premise of EA is that resources should be spent in effective ways, and potential altruistic benefits is no excuse for an ineffective spending of money.
It seems like setting ourselves up for selection bias if we take listen only to people with experience with "how bad journalism gets". We also want to get advice from people with good experiences with journalism, because they might be doing things that make them more likely to get good experiences, and presumably know about how to continue to go about having good experiences, having gotten them.
There may be some parts of EA where the media don't start out nicely inclined to the area at hand, but I think on many topics we might care to engage with the media on, they likely would start out neutral or positive on anything.
We might take the points here with more weight if they are from someone with extensive experience, but a lack of experience doesn't invalidate the reasoning here.
I think it would be better if agree/disagree voting didn't follow the typical karma rules where different users have different amounts of karma. As it stands I often don't know how many people expressed agreement vs. disagreement, which feels like the information I actually want, and it doesn't make intuitive sense that one forum user might be able to "agree twice as much" as another with a comment.
Perhaps you've seen these things already if you're thinking about having kids, but Julia Wise and Jeff Kaufman have written about their decision to be parents and their experiences parenting extensively. The stuff I could find that addresses the question of making the decision:
Thanks for writing this post! I think promoting diversity in EA is incredibly important and I appreciate your contribution to it.
However, I get a feeling here that you've started with an underlying assumption that "EA should cater to women", which I don't see the argument for. Certainly, if there's a stark lack of women throughout EA, I'd feel that there's a problem that needs to be specifically addressed - but I don't think this is the case.
You present information about the academic fields that correlate with participation in EA, and note that there's a gender disparity that matches the one we seem to observe in EA. To me, this seems like evidence that there isn't a problem within EA, but a result of broader, more complicated dynamics elsewhere. On the other hand, the other demographic data you present on other minorities seems like a more significant issue.
For instance, the rest of the 80k article you cite is clear about the fact that the framework isn't applicable to everyone, and I think the choice of whether to have children is just one of many possible reasons the framework might not strictly apply to a person. And while demographic data shows that the work of having children affects women disproportionately, non-women who intend to parent would also need to consider the same unanswered questions.
Because of these dynamics, I don't think that the claim you've made here, that more resources should be directed in a way that addresses the gender disparity, is substantiated.
I'm curious to hear from where you've gotten the sense that the EA community uses a 'male-default position' - I've never felt this.
(As a side note, if you haven't heard of them, there's magnifymentoring - previously WANBAM)
Thanks for this! It wouldn't have occurred to me to consider the decline of footbinding as a case study of moral progress,
I think you've probably noted this and perhaps didn't mention it because it's not directly relevant to the main questions you're investigating, but I think it's important to note for someone who only reads this post that having bound feet was a status symbol - it began among the social elite and spread over time to lower social classes, remained a status symbol because families who needed girls to conduct agricultural labor could not partake in the practice, and in practice an incentive to do it was to increase marriage prospects.
A suggestion that might preserve the value of giving higher karma users more voting power, while addressing some of the concerns: give users with karma the option to +1 a post instead of +2/+3, if they wish.
related: Can we agree on a better name than 'near-termist'?
Thanks for writing this up!
I'm not sure about the implications, but I just want to register that deciding to roll repeatedly, after each roll for a total of n rolls, is not the same as committing to n rolls at the beginning. The latter is equivalent in expected value to rolling every trial at the same time: the former has a much higher expected value. It is still positive, though.
I wanted to describe my personal experience in case it shifts anyone like me towards applying. I was accepted, received travel support, and went to EAG London last month.
Initially, I considered the likelihood that I would be accepted and be able to go very low: I didn't think I was involved enough in EA and I didn't think it made sense for me to receive travel support to go as I live very far from London. I also didn't think that I 'deserved' to go: I reasoned that I shouldn't take a spot from someone more engaged in EA or could provide more value to other attendees. I probably wouldn't have applied if not for having a personal connection with someone else who applied.
Nearly every interaction I had at the conference was positive. Many people I spoke to were happy to share about their area even if I had little prior understanding, and I was surprised to find I had ideas and perspectives that were unique/might not have surfaced in conversation had I not been there.
As a young person, I have never felt more respected as a full person and equal with meaningful ideas to contribute. EAG is intense - it can be near constant interaction with a lot of people, focused on the most important problems in the world. But going to EAG made me feel like a 'part of' EA, and gave me a lot more confidence to make decisions, to try things, to reach out to people.
If you're like me and concerned about not being qualified or not having done enough, let the organisers judge, and consider the possibility that EAG might give you the ability to do more later.