Outside view/counterfactual exercise. You have a cause, say global warming, which you think so important that even a small change to its odd of success trumps the direct moral impact of anything else you can do with your life. E.g. you believe that even an extra dollar of funding for alternative energy is more morally important than saving a human life (given that the person has a net 0 carbon footprint). However, you are open to the possibility that there is an even more important cause that trumps yours to a similar level. You also know that there have historically been people that thought their causes were as important as you think yours is and turned out to be horribly wrong, at least from your prospective e.x. the Bolsheviks. How much do you focus on directly contributing to your cause vs contributing to public goods, not defecting in prisoners dilemmas, and other conventional do gooding?
The general Effective Altruism idea is that you shouldn't go for a very tiny chance of influencing a major cause. Instead on focusing on causes you should seek for opportunities that are effective at producing change.
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.
Previous Open Thread
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.
4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.