EA - Could 80,000 Hours’ messaging be discouraging for people not working on x-risk / longtermism? by Mack the Knife

Link to original articleWelcome 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: Could 80,000 Hours’ messaging be discouraging for people not working on x-risk / longtermism?, published by Mack the Knife on February 9, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum.Disclaimer: I understand the concept and concerns around x-risk and longtermism very well. Nevertheless, I personally have no interest in working in these areas, as I find others more important and suitable for myself.Edit: I want to make it clear that I understand why 80,000 Hours ranks career paths and that I certainly think they should advocate the cause areas they deem most important. After all, that's core EA. My critique is not about the "what", but about the "how" of their messaging - which, I fear, might discourage people motivated by so called "less important" cause areas to stop engaging or engage less with EA, thereby doing less good than they could.In a recent newsletter on "Is the world getting better or worse?", 80,000 Hours presents several problem areas that still exist in the world today - especially factory farming and, of course, x-risk. Although a career in animal welfare is admittedly mentioned, the conclusion is: "We think that the problem you work on in your career is the biggest driver of your impact. And we think that these existential risks are the biggest problems we currently face.”Bam. The biggest. And we're done. As is so often the case. At least according to my impression: 80,000 Hours pushes x-risk and longtermism, and other cause areas many EAs (and other people) are working hard and effectively on are actively cornered, not mentioned at all or described as "sometimes recommended" or as "less pressing than our highest priority areas" - the latter example being nothing less than climate change.Of course, I've become biased by now and notice such examples much more. For me, however, it's not so much the problem that x-risk and longtermism are put on a pedestal - but rather the failure to simultaneously present other career paths (that do a great deal of good and are, in my experience, typically the reason people become involved in EA in the first place) as equally worth pursuing. Instead, the famous list "What are the most pressing world problems?" puts factory farming and global health way at the bottom of the page as "Problems many of our readers prioritise". Readers prioritise these areas, but not 80,000 Hours because they're irrelevant - is that how I'm supposed to understand this?I'm somewhat sceptical about "ranking" something so complex and personal as career paths anyway, but can understand why 80,000 Hours is doing it. However, isn't it also possible to always be outright and unambiguously appreciative of the tremendous amount of good these "other" areas achieve for people, animals and planet?In summary, I have noticed over the last few months how these messages continue to upset me, and also demoralise and demotivate me. Because each of these messages makes me feel bad about the supposedly 'suboptimal' path I've chosen in the past - and like any future efforts (and also donations) in the areas that are close to my heart would not be valuable and I should just leave them altogether. This is further insensified by x-risk / longtermism's (at least perceived) growing singularisation within the entire EA community and large-scale messaging (WWOTF etc.).And so I wanted to ask: What do you think? Are you like me with this? Or do you feel that your (volunteer) work is fully valued in the general presentation of 80,000 Hours (and EA in general), even though you're not focused on x-risk and longtermism?Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.