3 ms·
Your question is the source of its own answer: if we want EA to be the most effective force for good it can be, we should make it something people will be glad
by Veedrac 4y ago
Your question is the source of its own answer: if we want EA to be the most effective force for good it can be, we should make it something people will be glad to be a part of.
It sounds like slight of hand, to say that things aren't optimal purely as a result of people not wanting them to be optimal, but it tracks. An EA that forces people to give up the things that they love is not as successful, on any axis, as one that does not.
- agucova 4y agoI was somewhat expecting this argument when I wrote the comment. The thing is that argument only works at the policy and governance level of EA. If I'm an individual who is convinced on the philosophy behind EA, and I'm willing to place it before anything else, then it doesn't matter what's optimal to “ensure commitment” because I'm already committed. That's why I mean when I say that sustainability isn't a good general argument: it can help you in some cases, but not all. Examining EA as a system of values, that either suggests that EA is insufficient or that self-care shouldn't be that important.
- Veedrac 4y agoThat's only a counterargument if you're ignoring the value of coordination with the greater EA movement. I don't know why one would take that stance.