1 min read 13

98

 “We are always in triage. I fervently hope that one day we will be able to save everyone. In the meantime, it is irresponsible to pretend that we aren’t making life and death decisions with the allocation of our resources. Pretending there is no choice only makes our decisions worse."

- Holly Elmore, explaining the need to prioritize given our limited resources.

In this chapter we’ll explore why you might want to help others, why it’s so critical to think carefully about how many people are affected by an intervention, and come to terms with the tradeoffs we face in our altruistic efforts.

Key concepts in this chapter include:

  • Scope sensitivity: saving ten lives is more important than saving one, and saving a billion lives is a lot more important than saving ten.
  • Tradeoffs: Because we have limited time and money, we need to prioritize between different ways to improve the world.
  • Scout mindset: We’ll be better able to help others if we’re working together to think clearly and orient towards finding the truth, rather than trying to defend our own ideas. Humans naturally aren’t great at this (aside from wanting to defend our own ideas, we have a host of other biases), but if we want to really understand the world, it’s worth seeking the truth and trying to become clearer thinkers.
     

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Comments14


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Helping more people is best achieved when you are not trying to defend your ideas, but by working with others and understanding the world better while doing that.

Confirmation Bias is quite intuitive because the every person wants to trust their judgement and sense. So having to give up that consistently, especially in emotionally charged situations, it is a hard skill to master. Nowadays with the personalised online experience, I can only imagine the confirmation bias becoming more and more difficult to manage. 

You often see people passionately defending their ideas, even when all the evidence shows they're wrong. I really appreciate the mindset of actively seeking to be proven wrong.

Sometime, the trade-off is pressured by the funder - the SROI (social ROI) definitions/scope & realities need to be discussed and agreed early. The agree that scoping needs to be done well, otherwise there is wasteful use of resources. Adopting the scout mindsef is excellent for all stakeholders to be open-minded and agile.

Our organization has been exploring how to do more effective altruism by focusing more geographically and population-specific.   This requiring us to say No to those we have said Yes to before.  We need to find better ways to communicate this so that those we are saying No to understand our logic and those we are saying Yes to understand the impact we hope can be achieved by working together.

I am happy to have a clearer understanding in ways of how I can make meaningful impact towards giving help the right way.

"Seeking the truth and saving more lives without being bias"

I give you a thumb up.

"Pretending there is no choice only makes our decisions worse."

I love this!

Me too....i think there must always be choices to pick from...

Reading through this material again, the Scout Mindset appeals differently to me- "Finding the truth, rather than trying to defend our ideas". Conventional wisdom has told us to be bold and outspoken about our convictions. This statement here presents a clash of convictions, to hold on to my ideas or to seek the truth outside of them! If this is what EA is all about, then i am game and willing to challenge and explore these truths.

The Scope sensitivity concept is a challenging one. Sometimes the argument i have made over time is if you can save one life, better save one life rather than trying to save 10 and not do it well. Wow. Again i will reflect more on this concept. Complex!

The chapter prompts readers to adopt a collaborative and truth-seeking approach for effective altruism. The call to prioritize clarity of thought and the pursuit of truth resonates as a fundamental principle for comprehending and positively impacting the world around us.

[comment deleted]1
0
0
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 16m read
 · 
This is a crosspost for The Case for Insect Consciousness by Bob Fischer, which was originally published on Asterisk in January 2025. [Subtitle.] The evidence that insects feel pain is mounting, however we approach the issue. For years, I was on the fence about the possibility of insects feeling pain — sometimes, I defended the hypothesis;[1] more often, I argued against it.[2] Then, in 2021, I started working on the puzzle of how to compare pain intensity across species. If a human and a pig are suffering as much as each one can, are they suffering the same amount? Or is the human’s pain worse? When my colleagues and I looked at several species, investigating both the probability of pain and its relative intensity,[3] we found something unexpected: on both scores, insects aren’t that different from many other animals.  Around the same time, I started working with an entomologist with a background in neuroscience. She helped me appreciate the weaknesses of the arguments against insect pain. (For instance, people make a big deal of stories about praying mantises mating while being eaten; they ignore how often male mantises fight fiercely to avoid being devoured.) The more I studied the science of sentience, the less confident I became about any theory that would let us rule insect sentience out.  I’m a philosopher, and philosophers pride themselves on following arguments wherever they lead. But we all have our limits, and I worry, quite sincerely, that I’ve been too willing to give insects the benefit of the doubt. I’ve been troubled by what we do to farmed animals for my entire adult life, whereas it’s hard to feel much for flies. Still, I find the argument for insect pain persuasive enough to devote a lot of my time to insect welfare research. In brief, the apparent evidence for the capacity of insects to feel pain is uncomfortably strong.[4] We could dismiss it if we had a consensus-commanding theory of sentience that explained why the apparent evidence is ir
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
I recently read a blog post that concluded with: > When I'm on my deathbed, I won't look back at my life and wish I had worked harder. I'll look back and wish I spent more time with the people I loved. Setting aside that some people don't have the economic breathing room to make this kind of tradeoff, what jumps out at me is the implication that you're not working on something important that you'll endorse in retrospect. I don't think the author is envisioning directly valuable work (reducing risk from international conflict, pandemics, or AI-supported totalitarianism; improving humanity's treatment of animals; fighting global poverty) or the undervalued less direct approach of earning money and donating it to enable others to work on pressing problems. Definitely spend time with your friends, family, and those you love. Don't work to the exclusion of everything else that matters in your life. But if your tens of thousands of hours at work aren't something you expect to look back on with pride, consider whether there's something else you could be doing professionally that you could feel good about.
 ·  · 14m read
 · 
Introduction In this post, I present what I believe to be an important yet underexplored argument that fundamentally challenges the promise of cultivated meat. In essence, there are compelling reasons to conclude that cultivated meat will not replace conventional meat, but will instead primarily compete with other alternative proteins that offer superior environmental and ethical benefits. Moreover, research into and promotion of cultivated meat may potentially result in a net negative impact. Beyond critique, I try to offer constructive recommendations for the EA movement. While I've kept this post concise, I'm more than willing to elaborate on any specific point upon request. Finally, I contacted a few GFI team members to ensure I wasn't making any major errors in this post, and I've tried to incorporate some of their nuances in response to their feedback. From industry to academia: my cultivated meat journey I'm currently in my fourth year (and hopefully final one!) of my PhD. My thesis examines the environmental and economic challenges associated with alternative proteins. I have three working papers on cultivated meat at various stages of development, though none have been published yet. Prior to beginning my doctoral studies, I spent two years at Gourmey, a cultivated meat startup. I frequently appear in French media discussing cultivated meat, often "defending" it in a media environment that tends to be hostile and where misinformation is widespread. For a considerable time, I was highly optimistic about cultivated meat, which was a significant factor in my decision to pursue doctoral research on this subject. However, in the last two years, my perspective regarding cultivated meat has evolved and become considerably more ambivalent. Motivations and epistemic status Although the hype has somewhat subsided and organizations like Open Philanthropy have expressed skepticism about cultivated meat, many people in the movement continue to place considerable hop