To be clear, the idea is not that trying to deliberately slow world economic growth would be a maximally effective use of EA resources and better than current top targets; this seems likely to have very small marginal effects, and many such courses are risky. The question is whether a good and virtuous person ought to avoid, or alternatively seize, any opportunities which come their way to help out on world economic growth.

It sounds like status quo bias. If growth was currently 2% higher, should the person then seize on growth-slowing opportunities?

One answer: it could be that any effort is likely to have little success in slowing world growth, but a large detrimental effect on the person's other projects. Fair enough, but presumably it applies equally to speeding growth.

Another: an organisation that aspires to political respectability shouldn't be seen to be advocating sabotage of the economy.