• 'The Kinks' wrote these songs over fifty years ago but they echo some EA-endorsed ideas and my experiences of them.
  • I enjoy these songs for feeling more engaged and less alone with these ideas and experiences. Also because they're great songs (by my taste!)
  • Sharing them below in case they do something similar for you. Also in case there's any other songs or interpretations you'd add, including whether I've been overly influenced by The Kinks and/or EA ideas 😅
SongSong ideas (my interpretation)Relation to EA ideas/experiences (my interpretation)
'A Well Respected Man' (1965)We often miss opportunities to benefit others with our privileges 
'Apeman' * (1970)Shares anxieties about "crazy politicians" and that "I don't want to die in a nuclear war"
  • Taking action on existential risks, and
  • Experiencing difficult emotions when taking notice of these risks **
Concern for "inflation and starvation"
  • Connectedness with, and care for, people

"I'm no better than the animals sitting

In the cages in the zoo man"

  • Humility, 
  • Connectedness with, and care for, non-human animals
'Strangers' (1970)"I see many people coming after me... So I will follow you wherever you go"
  • Humility, 
  • Connectedness with, and care for, future generations

"Strangers on this road we are on

We are not two we are one"

"So we will share this road we walk,

And mind our mouths and beware our talk"

* Annoyingly this song is not very gender sensitive. Also all three songs have a heavily western worldview given The Kinks were a UK band

** In case helpful, I find this C.S. Lewis quote (amongst other resources suggested in Mental Health and the Alignment Problem) particularly helpful for sharing and managing these difficult emotions.

6

0
0
1

Reactions

0
0
1
Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 55m read
 · 
Summary Last updated 2024-11-20. It's been a while since I last put serious thought into where to donate. Well I'm putting thought into it this year and I'm changing my mind on some things. I now put more priority on existential risk (especially AI risk), and less on animal welfare and global priorities research. I believe I previously gave too little consideration to x-risk for emotional reasons, and I've managed to reason myself out of those emotions. Within x-risk: * AI is the most important source of risk. * There is a disturbingly high probability that alignment research won't solve alignment by the time superintelligent AI arrives. Policy work seems more promising. * Specifically, I am most optimistic about policy advocacy for government regulation to pause/slow down AI development. In the rest of this post, I will explain: 1. Why I prioritize x-risk over animal-focused longtermist work and global priorities research. 2. Why I prioritize AI policy over AI alignment research. 3. My beliefs about what kinds of policy work are best. Then I provide a list of organizations working on AI policy and my evaluation of each of them, and where I plan to donate. Cross-posted to my website. I don't like donating to x-risk (This section is about my personal motivations. The arguments and logic start in the next section.) For more than a decade I've leaned toward longtermism and I've been concerned about existential risk, but I've never directly donated to x-risk reduction. I dislike x-risk on an emotional level for a few reasons: * In the present day, aggregate animal welfare matters far more than aggregate human welfare (credence: 90%). Present-day animal suffering is so extraordinarily vast that on some level it feels irresponsible to prioritize anything else, even though rationally I buy the arguments for longtermism. * Animal welfare is more neglected than x-risk (credence: 90%).[1] * People who prioritize x-risk often disregard animal welfare (or t
 ·  · 11m read
 · 
Summary There’s a near consensus that EA needs funding diversification but with Open Phil accounting for ~90% of EA funding, that’s just not possible due to some pretty basic math. Organizations and the community would need to make large tradeoffs and this simply isn’t possible/worth it at this time. Lots of people want funding diversification It has been two years since the FTX collapse and one thing everyone seems to agree on is that we need more funding diversification. These takes range from off-hand wishes “it sure would be great if funding in EA were more diversified”, to organizations trying to get a certain percentage of their budgets from non-OP sources/saying they want to diversify their funding base[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] to Open Philanthropy/Good Ventures themselves wanting to see more funding diversification[9]. Everyone seems to agree; other people should be giving more money to the EA projects. The Math  Of course, I couldn’t make this post without breaking down the numbers. The math is really quite simple here. This is the best data I could find for EA funding in 2023 (numbers in $USD). The best numbers I can find for 2023 Open Phil 691mm (source) SFF 33mm (source) Ea funds 14mm (source) ACE 8.3mm (source) Givewell 318mm (source) and (source) Nonlinear Network 1.5mm (source) Polaris Ventures 15mm (estimate) (source) Other/Individual EA donors 15mm (GWWC donors, etc. based on some rough math from (source). I’m very interested if someone has a better or more accurate figure. *I would be extremely happy to add/edit any additional numbers/figures, but I don’t expect this to significantly change the end result. I’m not sure if Givewell and Open Phil is double counting here (since Open Phil gives to Givewell) but I’m going to ignore Givewell as EA funding since a lot of this comes from what many would consider outside of the EA community (many people and philanthropists who wouldn’t consider themselves to be EAs though I’m not sure this is
TL;DR * Screwworm Free Future is a new group seeking support to advance work on eradicating the New World Screwworm in South America. * The New World Screwworm (C. hominivorax - literally "man-eater") causes extreme suffering to hundreds of millions of wild and domestic animals every year. * To date we’ve held private meetings with government officials, experts from the private sector, academics, and animal advocates. We believe that work on the NWS is valuable and we want to continue our research and begin lobbying. * Our analysis suggests we could prevent about 100 animals from experiencing an excruciating death per dollar donated, though this estimate has extreme uncertainty. * The screwworm “wall” in Panama has recently been breached, creating both an urgent need and an opportunity to address this problem. * We are seeking $15,000 to fund a part-time lead and could absorb up to $100,000 to build a full-time team, which would include a team lead and another full-time equivalent (FTE) role * We're also excited to speak to people who have a background in veterinary science/medicine, entomology, gene drives, as well as policy experts in Latin America. - please reach out if you know someone who fits this description!   Cochliomyia hominivorax delenda est Screwworm Free Future is a new group of volunteers investigating the political and scientific barriers stopping South American governments from eradicating the New World Screwworm. In our shallow investigation, we have identified key bottlenecks, but we now need funding and people to take this investigation further, and begin lobbying. In this post, we will cover the following: * The current status of screwworms * Things that we have learnt in our research * What we want to do next * How you can help by funding or supporting or project   What’s the deal with the New World Screwworm? The New World Screwworm[1] is the leading cause of myiasis in Latin America. Myiasis “is the parasitic infestatio