Hi,
I'm a recent graduate in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, working as a software engineer in London.
I'm new to treating EA as more than just an interesting idea, and I'm looking for ways I could plan my future with impact in mind - I'm very open to a wide range of options.
I don't believe that people who are never born lose out on something they never had, and I don't see additional tragedy in humanity's narrative being cut short, but I do want to improve the welfare of future people who do end up existing. This makes me something of a weak longtermist and I'm still figuring out what this means prescriptively. I also care a lot about the welfare of present people around the world.
Message me about anything at all.
p.s. Sometimes, you can make the world better by choosing to be happy right now!
It doesnt seem like the done thing to talk mainly about feelings on this forum but I think that here they are relevant.
I am very upset by this and very disappointed. By the original email, by the quality of the apology, and by the nature of the discussion here on the forum.
Many people here in the comments are discussing what science can/cannot say with certainty about the IQ of different groups, and whether technically speaking the sentences in Bostrom's apology are factually accurate. I think this is missing the point.
Being super when rational is important in matters such as deciding how most effectively to allocate funding but I don't think that is the mindset we should be taking here. I think some people see all discussion as a mere iterative process for coming closer to the truth but human communication is a lot more than that - you don't 'prove' to someone that they shouldnt be offended by a something someone said. Attitudes are expressed by the things you choose to say (even if you never say a falsehood) and right now the community needs to be signalling that it cares about people of colour.
Many have mentioned that we have a neurodiverse community. I really do sympathise with those who find this sort of approach/deciding when to take this sort of approach difficult. I honestly don't know what to suggest.
I have friends who are highly effective, intelligent, and compassionate individuals. I hope to be able to slowly convince them to be EAs but I'd really struggle to tempt them into a community that deals with a matter like this so coldly. If they saw the discussion in this comment section they would walk away, and in their minds, they'd have a big red X over anything associated with EA.
I was tempted not to write this and to just have my personal feelings of identification and association with this community reduced slightly. I hope others who feel like me won't do that either.
We need to do better at being inclusive. Our goals are compassionate but I think we would do better if we signalled compassion day-to-day.
This is the standard objection that the line we draw betwen a life worth living and one not is actually high enough that the RC is not repugnant. I think this is plausible but it means accepting that many people today have lives not worth living which could be considered quite harsh - many of the people alive in poverty today believe their own lives are worth living. I cant see how holding this argument is not the same as holding that one knows better than they do abotu the value of their own lives.