Link to original article

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Technocracy vs populism (including thoughts on the democratising risk paper and its responses), published by freedomandutility on December 29, 2021 on The Effective Altruism Forum. TL;DR: I think EAs are advocating for more technocratic decision-making without having formally thought about this. This makes it an urgent priority for EAs to answer the following questions: What balance should policymakers strike between technocracy and populism generally? How, if at all, should this balance change when there is a large difference between public and expert opinion? How, if at all, should this balance change when moral and/or empirical uncertainty is extremely high or extremely low? How, if at all, should this balance change when the differences in expected value between plausible policy options is extremely high or extremely low? Definitions: In this post, by 'populism' I mean 'policymakers making decisions based on public opinion' and don't intend to attach negative connotations to 'populism'. (I'd like to find a better word for this because 'populism' is a loosely defined word and has negative connotations. I considered using the word 'democracy' here, but I think the positive connotations for 'democracy' are too large and thought that 'populism' is relatively more neutral (i.e, it seems more socially acceptable to argue for more populism than for less democracy). I also think 'democracy' doesn't convey the extreme end of decisions being made on public opinion. If you can think of a better word, please suggest it). By technocracy, I mean 'policymakers making decisions based on expert opinion'. Post: We can think of decisions by policymakers as existing on a spectrum from extremely technocratic to extremely populist. My view of EA has long been that it clearly advocates for more technocratic decision-making. The clearest example of this is an investigation into reducing populism and promoting evidence-based policy. Apart from this, here are some subjective impressions which contribute to my view: many EAs think governments should use more expert surveys in decision-making many EAs actively seek to use their expertise to lobby policymakers, but few are pursuing 'grassroots' approaches to policy change (Note: While aiming to be the person available when policymakers want expert opinion does not favour more technocratic decision-making, actively seeking to influence policymakers does favour more technocratic decision-making) Off the top of my head, these are the 2 main, broad, downsides to more technocratic decision-making: More populist decision-making reduces the risks involved in acting under moral and empirical uncertainty, by incorporating a wider range of moral theories and opinions into decision making. So, more technocratic decision-making increases the risks. More populist decision-making reduces the risks from experts intentionally or unintentionally advocating for unethical policies (under a wide range of moral theories) out of self-interest. So, more technocratic decision-making increases this risk. (This risk is a greater risk than the risk of >50% of the public advocating for unethical policies out of self-interest, because in expectation, unethical policies in the self-interest of ">50% of the public" would be good for more people than unethical policies in the self-interest of experts). Some people (including a past version of me) consider 'more democratic' decision-making to be inherently good, regardless of outcomes, because they see everyone having more equal political power as an end in itself. So more technocratic decision-making goes against this. And this is the main, broad downside to more populist decision-making: Public opinion on moral theories and empirical evidence are less likely to be correct and rational than expert opinion, so decisions mad...