EA funds gave $3 Million to IPA over the last two years:
Did you mean something different?
I'm not sure I understand your argument.
Are you saying (a) we have some non-zero ethical obligation to the past? Or (b) we have some non-zero ethical obligation to the past AND many people, specific people, EA, or some other group is not sufficiently meeting that obligation?
Claim (a) seems quite weak, in the sense that just about everyone already agrees. I don't think I have encountered people suggesting all past should be disavowed. We have a system of wills which very explicitly honors their wishes. Culturally, there are countless examples of people paying deference to ancestors with museums, works of art, naming of children and places etc. etc.
Claim (b) seems to be a bolder claim, and this is what Gwern implies. It does seem that the level of ethical concern for ancestors/past is dropping, but I am not at all convinced that it is dropping too far. If anything I would say that people in the past have been massively too deferential to their ancestors wishes and this downward correction is needed and insufficient. It also seems to me that it takes substantial effort to work against honoring our past selves due to sunk cost and status quo biases.
Thanks for any clarification you can offer. 👍
I submitted something like this to the FTXFF idea contest, obviously not chosen. It seems like High Impact Professionals is in or near this space:
I thought Probably Good might work on something like this, but doesn't seem like it so far:
Ah thanks...it was not clear to me that these aren't things that currently exist, cheers
Thank you for the post. What did you mean by these two things? Can you provide more details or links?
>doing research projects in an EA hub
>joining an 80k career group for people of the same age
Maybe, does this apply to non-profits?
I'm not sure if this perspective is helpful but this issue reminds me of a somewhat analogous situation in the Financial Independence Retire Early (FIRE) movement. Originally the focus was on drastically limiting spending, increasing the savings rate to as high as possible, and retiring shockingly young. Then, as time passed some people realized they didn't want to live in such austerity. Other people found that they could move things along faster by focusing on earning more, instead of spending less. Then there were people who didn't really want to retire but more like get enough income to be comfortable and then downshift their lifestyles. There were folks who just focused on making as much money as possible and remained in the community even though they were just about getting rich. Then some people sort of stumbled into the movement having made a ton of money on cryptocurrency or Tesla options or whatever...they never really applied any of the principles but still retired early.
With all these changes in the demographics and mindsets of the community I've noticed that the subjects discussed and the behavior encouraged has notably changed over the years. It does not look much like what I saw 15 years ago.
Part of the change I've seen is that people with different flavors in mind self-select to associate with others that are similar. /r/leanfire separates from /r/fatfire etc. I'm guessing that drift and fragmentation like this are very likely for any group/movement that gets big enough. I don't know if it is a good or bad thing.
>This kind of support we can give to each other, it doesn't cost a penny to give subjective advice
I wanted to follow up now that a couple months have passed and see if you were able to get more clarity on your path forward? I can also share what I have decided for now.
By the way, AAC training is Animal Advocacy Careers.
This one is great
This does not seem to be correct. The list you linked for e-books is dated 2017, which partly explains why it has old books. The current NYT list is combined:
Correct me if I'm wrong