EA Forum Reader

Btw, there's a section on "Comparing and combining risks" in Chapter 6 of The Precipice (pages 171-173 in my version), which is very relevant to this discussion. Appendix D expands on that further. I'd recommend interested people check that out.

For whatever it’s worth, my own tentative guess would actually be that saving a life in the developing world contributes more to growth in the long run than saving a life in the developed world. Fertility in the former is much higher, and in the long run I expect growth and technological development to be increasing in global population size (at least over the ranges we can expect to see).

Is this taking more immediate existential risks into account and to what degree and how people in the developing and developed worlds affect them?

Training children that it is a good idea to keep psychopaths as pets as long as they are cute probably results in them voting actors into positions of authority later in life.

This discussion of which VC-backed startups are ineligible makes me think most nonprofits will be eligible: https://intro.indie.vc/vcbacked-companies

Not definitive though.

This guide is also good: https://intro.indie.vc/sba

I detect elevated levels of malarkey in this comment :^)

I'd still agree that we should factor in cooperation, but my intuition is then that it's going to be a smaller consideration than neglect of future generations, so more about tilting things around the edges, and not being a jerk, rather than significantly changing the allocation. I'd be up for being convinced otherwise – and maybe the model with log returns you mention later could do that. If you think otherwise, could you explain the intuition behind it?

I think one point worth emphasizing is that if the cooperative portfolio is a pareto improvement, then theoretically no altruist, including longtermist EAs, can be made worse off by switching to the cooperative portfolio.

Therefore, even if future generations are heavily neglected, the cooperative portfolio is better according to longtermist EAs (and thus for future generations) than the competitive equilibrium. It may still be too costly to move towards the competitive equilibrium, and it is non-obvious to me how the neglect of future generations changes the cost of trying to move society towards the cooperative portfolio or the gain of defecting. But if the cost of moving society to the cooperative portfolio is very low then we should probably cooperate even if future generations are very neglected.

Yes, it is correct that increasing headcount will not affect loan forgiveness.

As long as the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees at the end of this eight week period matches the number of FTE you had before (either calculated an average monthly FTEs during Feb-Jun 2019 or average monthly FTEs in Jan + Feb 2020), your loan will be forgiven. It can also be partially forgiven in proportion to your reduction in FTEs.

This phrasing is ambiguous as to what would happen to loan forgiveness if a firm increased the number of full-time employees during the loan period.

A friend's firm asked me about this so I poked into it a bit. Having done that, I'm ~80% sure that increasing headcount during the loan period wouldn't affect loan forgiveness.

From the statute text:

In General.—The amount of loan forgiveness under this section shall be reduced, but not increased, by multiplying the amount described in subsection (b) by the quotient obtained by dividing—

the average number of full-time equivalent employees per month employed by
the eligible recipient during the covered period; by

at the election of the borrower—

the average number of full-time equivalent employees per month employed by
the eligible recipient during the period beginning on February 15, 2019 and ending
on June 30, 2019; or

the average number of full-time equivalent employees per month employed by
the eligible recipient during the period beginning on January 1, 2020 and ending on
February 29, 2020; 

(Formatting isn't perfect because legal formatting doesn't play nice with EA Forum formatting.)

I don't buy your example on 80k's advice re: climate change. You want to cooperate in prisoner's dilemmas if you think that it will cause the agent you are cooperating with to cooperate more with you in the future. So there needs to a) be another coherent agent, which b) notices your actions, c) takes actions in response to yours, and d) might plausibly cooperate with you in the future. In the climate change case, what is the agent you'd be cooperating with here and does it meet these criteria?

Is it the climate change movement? It doesn't seem to me that "the climate change movement" is enough of a coherent agent to do things like decide "let's help EA with their goals."

Or is it individual people who care about climate change? Are they able to help you with your goals? What is it you want from them?