Article 5 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
"Obviously, no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
OK, it doesn’t actually start with "obviously," but I like to imagine the commissioners all murmuring to themselves “obviously” when this item was brought up.
I’m not sure what the causal effect of Article 5 (or the 1984 UN Convention Against Torture) has been on reducing torture globally, though the physical integrity rights index (which “captures the extent to which people are free from government torture and political killings”) has increased from 0.48 in 1948 to 0.67 in 2024 (which is good). However, the index reached 0.67 already back in 2001, so at least according to this metric, we haven’t made much progress in the past 25 years. Reducing government torture and killings seems to be low in tractability.
Despite many countries having a physical integrity rights index close to 1.0 (i.e., virtually no government torture or political killings), many of their citizens still experience torture-level pain on a regular basis. I’m talking about cluster headache, the “most painful condition known to mankind” according to Dr. Caroline Ran of the Centre for Cluster Headache, a newly-founded research group at the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden.
Dr. Caroline Ran speaking at the 2025 Symposium on the recent advances in Cluster Headache research and medicine
Yesterday I had the opportunity to join the first-ever international research symposium on cluster headache organized at the Nobel Forum of the Karolinska Institutet. It was a 1-day gathering of roughly 100 participants interested in advancing our understanding of the origins of and potential treatments for cluster headache. I'd like to share some impressions in this post.
The most compelling evidence for Dr. Ran’s quote above comes from a 2020 survey of cluster headache patients by Burish et al., which asked patients to rate cluster headach
Hi! I joined the forum recently, and wanted to introduce myself.
I am a Bachelor's student in Computer Science and Economics in the Eastern US. Throughout the years, I attempted to introduce effective altruism to my friends and classmates - when appropriate. The concept seemed to resonate especially well with students in engineering and finance, but ultimately the efforts rarely resulted in concrete changes.
That problem got irreversibly stuck in my mind: Why do these people, who are both good and can intellectually see the net benefits of EA, find it difficult to engage with? Was it because we are students and stereotypically dislike spending any amount of money?
From what those people have done and said, the problem might lie in the perceived inaccessibility of EA (for example, the added research step of ensuring effective use of donations discouraged many from taking action) and/or perceived emotional distance of the results (for example, using evidence and logic to discard some altruistic missions in favor of others may have taken away from the emotional component of altruism, which seems to be the more traditional aspect) .
I don't know why EA is not more prevalent or 'easy' to get into. I think it should be. But maybe it was my approach that was faulty; I have a lot to learn. So, I am here to learn more and do better, effectively.
The barrier to action is definitely a big thing. When I was a student, I avoided donating money. I told myself I'd start donating when I got a job and started making good money. Then, when I did get a job, I procrastinated for another two years.
The thing that convinced me to finally do it was joining a different online group where I tried to do a good deed every day. When I got that down, I got into the habit of doing good, which made me rethink EA. After some thought, I committed to try giving 10% just for a year. A month later, I made the Giving Wh... (read more)