On the whole, it looks good to me. The approach seems a bit more directly proselytizing than most recent Singularity writing, particularly the specific mention of SIAI in the last paragraph, but I'm not sure whether that's a good or a bad thing.
Some nitpicks:
Would donors and activists support the causes they currently do, if they had full information, better minds, and deep reflection to guide their judgment? Thomas Pogge is one thinker who believes that we wouldn’t
"that they wouldn't"?
attending to the possibility of a negative the Singularity
remove "the"
Muelhauser
"Muehlhauser"
ETA: also, you might want to replace "better minds" in the first sentence with something more specific, like "sharper minds".
Great, thanks for the feedback. I'll make those changes. Elusive 'h', there.
I managed to turn an essay assignment into an opportunity to write about the Singularity, and I thought I'd turn to LW for feedback on the paper. The paper is about Thomas Pogge, a German philosopher who works on institutional efforts to end poverty and is a pledger for Giving What We Can.
I offer a basic argument that he and other poverty activists should work on creating a positive Singularity, sampling liberally from well-known Less Wrong arguments. It's more academic than I would prefer, and it includes some loose talk of 'duties' (which bothers me), but for its goals, these things shouldn't be a huge problem. But maybe they are - I want to know that too.
I've already turned the assignment in, but when I make a better version, I'll send the paper to Pogge himself. I'd like to see if I can successfully introduce him to these ideas. My one conversation with him indicates that he would be open to actually changing his mind. He's clearly thought deeply about how to do good, and may simply have not been exposed to the idea of the Singularity yet.
I want feedback on all aspects of the paper - style, argumentation, clarity. Be as constructively cruel as I know only you can.
If anyone's up for it, fee free to add feedback using Track Changes and email me a copy - mjcurzi[at]wustl.edu. I obviously welcome comments on the thread as well.
You can read the paper here in various formats.
Upvotes for all. Thank you!