Worth noting that there exist precedents to some of this in rationalist- and EA-adjacent spheres, especially in some things Benjamin Ross Hoffman has written; a post that pushes back on some of what you've said or implied might be 'Why I am not a Quaker'. Link: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6XvnqW28e2twiv6ww/why-i-am-not-a-quaker-even-though-it-often-seems-as-though-i
A different response (this is mine, nothing to do with Hoffman) is that Quakerism 'got it wrong' on the biggest moral question of the 20th century: the Second World War. We should be *scared* of a movement that confronts such a monumental issue head-on and comes down confidently and squarely and with few reservations on one side (viz., pacifism) that today we regard as enabling evil. Camus wrote of that era: 'These are the moments when everything becomes clear, when every action constitutes a commitment, when every choice has its price, when nothing is neutral any more. It is the time of morality, that is, a time when language becomes clear...' Language becomes clear when facing Nazism, yet Quakers could not see that clarity.
While the morality of fighting World War 2 is definitely settled inside the main Overton window, in the contexts of minority viewpoints like EA and Quakerism, and their strong commitments to reasoning out morality, I don't think it's necessarily settled.
The atomic bombs, the military industrial complex, the permanent militarization of the US, the war on terror, and Manichean justifications for numerous immoral political actions, coups, and wars are all consequences of the activist position on World War 2. It's at least debatable that we're not free and clear of the shadow of that war and in the black as far as our choices.
A worthy book that's *not* outside the mainstream Overton window is https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1948985.Human_Smoke . It details some of the lost opportunities for pacifism and level headed thinking in the 30s and 40s, and is worth a read if one wants to really test one's commitment to the "WW2 was right" position.
Yeah this is a great point. It's related to my point that they shouldn't run nations, which is a notable limitation. I wouldn't want to exist in a Quaker world, but we are overall absurdly enriched by their contributions. Being pivotal in the industrial revolution and the ending of slavery (amongst much else) is a legacy very few movements can point to.
In other words, we can find usefulness and emulation possible without directly copying (I do not want EAs to decide as a whole group that all conflicts are verboten - and I know a few that, for example, funded Ukrainian arms for a while. We should improve on the blueprint - not copy it blow for blow.
It's hard to be a successful minority. Everything points towards growth or decline. Something that "only works when we're a minority" runs into this problem eventually.
That isn't to say its useless, but it's hard to acknowledge that you can't grow too much without entering into decline. Especially if a universalist ethic is your justification.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "you can't grow too much without entering into decline". Are you okay to outline a little more what you mean by this?
The traditional Christian gospel is one where the message and its actualization are accessible and gifted to everyone. In theory, if everyone followed Jesus's teachings correctly, the world would be a utopia.
But the message above is that EA is something that only a select group can get, and even if more people could get it, it probably wouldn't scale. Much like Quakers pacifism is great so long as someone else is going to exercise the monopoly on violence for you (or for that matter early christians).
It's very difficult to be in a position where you need to constantly convert people, but not too many people, to a message you think doesn't really work if too many people believe it. Especially in the modern era where groups like Quakers (and I'm guessing EAs) appear to have low fertility meaning you're probably going to decline without constant conversions.
I don't think it's long before EA starts emphasising having children (indeed there are moves that way already).
I also think it's perfectly sustainable to have a belief that converts others, has lots of children, but still doesn't become universal. Mormons, most sects of Protestantism, and indeed Quakerism have survived and flourished for centuries without being the religious hegemony. You don't need to worry about "not converting too many people" for quite some time (if at all), as it would take a long period indeed for EA (or any belief) to be the central influential or defining one for a particular (or particularly important) state.
I'm also uncertain that EA is *definitely* not scalable to leadership etc. - my point is that EA is unlikely to have to consider the ethics of that for some time, and can effect good change even as a minority group.
Worth noting that there exist precedents to some of this in rationalist- and EA-adjacent spheres, especially in some things Benjamin Ross Hoffman has written; a post that pushes back on some of what you've said or implied might be 'Why I am not a Quaker'. Link: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6XvnqW28e2twiv6ww/why-i-am-not-a-quaker-even-though-it-often-seems-as-though-i
A different response (this is mine, nothing to do with Hoffman) is that Quakerism 'got it wrong' on the biggest moral question of the 20th century: the Second World War. We should be *scared* of a movement that confronts such a monumental issue head-on and comes down confidently and squarely and with few reservations on one side (viz., pacifism) that today we regard as enabling evil. Camus wrote of that era: 'These are the moments when everything becomes clear, when every action constitutes a commitment, when every choice has its price, when nothing is neutral any more. It is the time of morality, that is, a time when language becomes clear...' Language becomes clear when facing Nazism, yet Quakers could not see that clarity.
While the morality of fighting World War 2 is definitely settled inside the main Overton window, in the contexts of minority viewpoints like EA and Quakerism, and their strong commitments to reasoning out morality, I don't think it's necessarily settled.
The atomic bombs, the military industrial complex, the permanent militarization of the US, the war on terror, and Manichean justifications for numerous immoral political actions, coups, and wars are all consequences of the activist position on World War 2. It's at least debatable that we're not free and clear of the shadow of that war and in the black as far as our choices.
A worthy book that's *not* outside the mainstream Overton window is https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1948985.Human_Smoke . It details some of the lost opportunities for pacifism and level headed thinking in the 30s and 40s, and is worth a read if one wants to really test one's commitment to the "WW2 was right" position.
Yeah this is a great point. It's related to my point that they shouldn't run nations, which is a notable limitation. I wouldn't want to exist in a Quaker world, but we are overall absurdly enriched by their contributions. Being pivotal in the industrial revolution and the ending of slavery (amongst much else) is a legacy very few movements can point to.
In other words, we can find usefulness and emulation possible without directly copying (I do not want EAs to decide as a whole group that all conflicts are verboten - and I know a few that, for example, funded Ukrainian arms for a while. We should improve on the blueprint - not copy it blow for blow.
It's hard to be a successful minority. Everything points towards growth or decline. Something that "only works when we're a minority" runs into this problem eventually.
That isn't to say its useless, but it's hard to acknowledge that you can't grow too much without entering into decline. Especially if a universalist ethic is your justification.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "you can't grow too much without entering into decline". Are you okay to outline a little more what you mean by this?
The traditional Christian gospel is one where the message and its actualization are accessible and gifted to everyone. In theory, if everyone followed Jesus's teachings correctly, the world would be a utopia.
But the message above is that EA is something that only a select group can get, and even if more people could get it, it probably wouldn't scale. Much like Quakers pacifism is great so long as someone else is going to exercise the monopoly on violence for you (or for that matter early christians).
It's very difficult to be in a position where you need to constantly convert people, but not too many people, to a message you think doesn't really work if too many people believe it. Especially in the modern era where groups like Quakers (and I'm guessing EAs) appear to have low fertility meaning you're probably going to decline without constant conversions.
I don't think it's long before EA starts emphasising having children (indeed there are moves that way already).
I also think it's perfectly sustainable to have a belief that converts others, has lots of children, but still doesn't become universal. Mormons, most sects of Protestantism, and indeed Quakerism have survived and flourished for centuries without being the religious hegemony. You don't need to worry about "not converting too many people" for quite some time (if at all), as it would take a long period indeed for EA (or any belief) to be the central influential or defining one for a particular (or particularly important) state.
I'm also uncertain that EA is *definitely* not scalable to leadership etc. - my point is that EA is unlikely to have to consider the ethics of that for some time, and can effect good change even as a minority group.
+1 on the point about universalism.