I feel more EAs (or anyone who wants to eat ethically) should consider ameliatarianism if they find that veganism is too difficult, nutritionally or otherwise. It removes the vast majority of animal suffering from your diet, with very few nutritional concerns.
I'm also curious what you think about lacto-vegetarianism. It's a step between vegan and ameliatarian suffering-wise, but I'm not sure where it falls between the two in terms of nutritional difficulty. There's the example of the large and ancient lacto-vegetarian culture in India, but if you don't eat the specific foods of that culture, how hard is it to stay nutritionally balanced as a lacto-vegetarian?
You say you didn't care about age and sex, but I'm curious about the distribution in your participants. Menstruation is very relevant to iron deficiencies.
Although I enjoy the practice of Meeting, I actually really disagree with you about Quaker practices around decisionmaking. My local Meeting had some huge disagreements around COVID that weren't resolved at all well; from that and how disagreements are handled in general, it almost seems to me to be more of a Tyranny of Structurelessness[1] kind of situation, where conflict is handled via backchanneling and silently routing around disagreements and leaning on people who disagree to let it go.
Frankly I just don't think consensus is a good decisionmaking method at all.
[1] https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
Thank you for writing these up! I think they are good guidelines for making discussion more productive.
Are these / are you planning to put these in a top level post as well?
EA is currently still the final frontier for every vegan everywhere, for example, including those in professional networks such as government policy.
EA is the ultimate destination for virtually all vegans in the world right now
I'm not that familiar with the vegan/animal rights community. What do you mean by this, can you elaborate? I thought animal rights was a large movement in its own right, separate from EA?
That all makes sense. It does feel like this is worth a larger conversation now that people are thinking about it, and I don't think you guys are the only ones.
I'm reminded of this Sam Altman tweet: https://mobile.twitter.com/sama/status/1621621724507938816
"The EA and rationality communities might be incredibly net negative" is a hell of a take to be buried in a post about closing offices.
:-(
Quick warning about The Steerswoman: It's a wonderful series that is incomplete, with a pretty big cliffhanger at the end of the last book. That book came out in 2004, and the last mention I can find on Rosemary Kirstein's blog is in 2021, saying that she was "taking a breather" on the next one.
Therapy is already technically possible to automate with ChatGPT. The issue is that people strongly prefer to get it from a real human, even when an AI would in some sense do a "better" job.
EDIT: A recent experiment demonstrating this: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/chatgpt-ai-experiment-mental-health-tech-app-koko-rcna65110
I don't see a way to click into individual charts to be able to zoom / see them in more detail. They're a bit crammed on the main page, which is fine for a summary but not great as the only way to view them.
In general it's a bit weird to have a news website with no way to click into a headline and see more information. Maybe that's OK for now, but it is surprising as a user. Perhaps you could link to or quote comments from the prediction market websites, or recent related news articles?
Are you using the same fonts as NYT? Probably better to use different ones to distinguish your site.
You've got various little weirdness with your borders and formatting. E.g.: the gray vertical lines between columns start at different points near the top. The spacing between the icons next to "Follow" and "Newsletter" is too close.
This is a very cool project, hope it continues!