Others will have better answers, but I have decided to keep donating some if my income to global health and development orgs (despite leaning pretty strongly longtermist) on the basis that:
a) non-longtermist orgs are, AFAIK, not totally funded; and
b) I won't miss it that much, and so it won't really impact any direct work I do
Even if some of the big near termist stuff is funded enough in the near future (e.g. LLIN distribution), seems like there could still be lots of cool unfunded opportunities (e.g. paying for mental health support for people in low to middle income countries).
I'm a non-vegan who is pretty confident animals are moral patients.
I would not object to humans being farmed by non-humans provided that the result is more utils being created than the counterfactual (perhaps some utils being enjoyed by the non-human farmers/eaters, but most utils being enjoyed by the humans who are being brought into existence by farming and who would not counterfactually exist).
FWIW, I do think there are instrumental reasons for humans not to subjugate other humans - and those instrumental reasons are very strong - and so of course I would not endorse slavery or cannibalism.
I am a pretty committed total view utilitarian on intuition, which is where this position comes from (but think that to be more confident I should engage at some point with metaethics and try to test how confident I am in this particular ethical framework). If you are a prior existence utilitarian or if you have some non-utilitarian tendencies, farming humans might seem much worse and I should take those intuitions seriously.
Applying this to animals, I feel very comfortable drinking milk or eating grass-fed beef raised here in New Zealand. I am soon relocating to London, and will need to reconsider the specific suffering/pleasure involved in animal products produced there.Disclaimer: I previously worked on a dairy/beef farm in New Zealand, so there is some risk that my thinking on this topic has been biased by that experience.
Kia ora Markus, thanks very much. I'd be grateful for a chat - will get in touch.
Austin, what sorts of legal needs did you have (/currently still have) in setting up Manifold Markets? Jurisdiction aside, anything not in the list above?
Thanks for the suggestion, Luke. I hadn't considered this. I'm going to have a go at the Open Phil Calibration Training applet first, and will scour the forum and Lesswrong for other useful training.I've had mixed experiences using probabilistic language in my legal advice. It really depends on the client and the advisor being able to think like that. But I've got some internal clients who have responded well to this sort of advice - explaining things in terms of expected value can be especially good when giving advice about counterparties who won't tell us what they're thinking (e.g. in litigation or commercial negotiations). It would be excellent to work with EAs who think like this without prompting, and who actually expect that kind of advice.
Thanks, Devansh. Scaling a traditional law firm definitely requires that 'pyramid' approach - but it isn't unusual for boutique firms (both in law, and in other professional services areas) to be mostly comprised of reasonably experienced folk. I'm reluctant to think about scaling up too much (although have of course given it some consideration) as my focus is on seeing whether the idea has merit at a more modest scale, but the composition of a more scaled up org providing legal services (and/or other professional services) might be determined by the interest EA lawyers had in doing that work - I'm speculating that if there are lots of people in the intersection of those three sets I described above, you might see more within-community growth versus hiring outside. But all of this is just a guess - focus at first would be on testing the merits with one or a small number of people.
Logging back in for the first time in a while (regular reader, less regular poaster) - if anyone returns here, I wanted to note that the Triple-P enjoyed a 100% success rating (n=1, not including myself). I'm conscious that even very high quality social science research doesn't always easily replicate, but caution anyone reading this not to ignore such a powerful result.