The focus of creating as much value as possible in the Expected Value calculation is one I am not very sure about. I understand the concept, but as someone who works with data, I’d be more drawn to causes that have been proven to have high value already. Thus, the idea of fringe ideas would not be one of my immediate concerns. I always feel that there are more pertinent issues which are visible and measurable that we should focus on currently. This is the same thought process I hold behind not being an advocate of longtermism. I believe we already have very many important causes right now that I’d rather we focus on.
Another area I’m a bit skeptical about is the expansion of the empathy circle. For most of my life I’ve not had a lot of empathy towards non-human animals. I would not want them tortured, but I would not say that they deserve as much empathy as human beings. Again, I feel like our circle of empathy still has a long way to go in dealing with humans so conversations on expanding it to other sentient beings (and stretching the idea as far as algorithms) is not a cause I feel holds that much importance to me.
Finally, one of my biggest concerns is the urgency placed on climate change in the community. When talking of the most important causes, I feel like climate change is under-ranked as a massive danger to the future of our world. I find it misleading to place speculative causes such as AI risks, catastrophic pandemics, nuclear war, and great power conflicts ahead of climate change in importance because climate change is something we are currently experiencing and it’s only bound to get worse. In my opinion, climate change is the top risk as it promises to destabilise society in the next few compared to some other risks (the warming targets we have set are on course to be missed as soon as 2030). The more we continue sliding into worse climate scenarios, the more social issues shall arise and they shall very possibly lead to the rise of all these other risks - AI/nuclear/biological wars triggered by the race for resources such as water, higher land away from the rising oceans, productive soil, and many more. Thus, I believe the cause prioritization should be reconsidered to account for these second factor effects of climate change.
While I am not a longtermist, I would not choose an action that would directly put the lives of others at risk even in 200 years. In the scenario, we are told that the toxic waste shall leak, therefore, it’s definite that there shall be thousands of livers lost. Compared to the 100 lives that would be lost now, I would not risk that many lives even though they are far in the future. While we have talked about discount functions, it would be immoral to treat human lives in that way.
In the second scenario where we are asked about 200 years or 2000 years, temporal discounting comes at a higher rate. Thinking that far into the future is hard because it would need me to think of other things that might have happened, such as existential catastrophes that might wipe out humanity before then. In that case, I would do more evaluation such that if I have confidence that humanity would be wiped out in that time, then I would save the 100 people in the current time. However, this would only be in a case where I am very confident that humanity shall be lost by that time, meaning the toxic waste I bury would have no effect on people in that future.
I hope you are doing well and that the community is thriving. I am reaching out to you from the future with some information that is crucial to changing the direction of our community. This information is about the patriarchy practised in our community and why things should change.
It has long been held that men are the leaders of the community and that women should be subversive to them. In the current world, this is called sexism - the idea that people of one gender (women in this case) are inferior to the other. There are many reasons that you might have to think this way but they are unfounded.
Think of the things that women are put through in your time. Girls are taken out of school and married off early to older men of your choosing. They are then made to have children from an early age, without taking into account their consent. This is a violation of their rights - why would a person be denied the right to an education, the right to a life of freedom, the right to a choice of their life partner, the right to choose when to have children - just because of their gender?
Another great atrocity that your daughters, sisters, and wives have been put through is Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Imagine the pain they go through and the danger it poses to their health. In the modern world, this practice has been outlawed because it is such a massive violation. Please consider the effects and you shall see why this decision was made.
In the modern world, women are treated equally as men. This has led to incredible gains in development and societal growth that your descendants enjoy. Women are just as intelligent and hard-working as men and given the opportunity, they shall help your generation make changes that shall forever reverberate in the community all the way to my present times. Please give equality a chance, for everyone in the community and ensure for each to count for one and none for more and you shall reap the fruits.
Thank you,
Your son from a thriving future in which all genders are equal
Against Malaria Foundation: 77,000 cases of malaria prevented, with an estimated 12 lives saved.
I would choose the Against Malaria Foundation because it is one of the highest-impact charities on the list. The effectiveness is exceptionally high and would allow more lives to be saved compared to my other choice, the Malaria Consortium. It also addresses a problem that is larger in scale compared to my other choice, the Helen Keller Foundation with over 600,000 people dying of malaria annually. Therefore, the numbers themselves state that the Against Malaria Foundation is where I should direct my donation.
This statement has really stuck with me and shall be a guiding factor in many of the conversations I hold with people henceforth: "When thoughtful people with access to the same information reach very different conclusions from each other, we should be curious about why and we should actively encourage people to voice and investigate where those disagreements are coming from"
Concerns about EA
The focus of creating as much value as possible in the Expected Value calculation is one I am not very sure about. I understand the concept, but as someone who works with data, I’d be more drawn to causes that have been proven to have high value already. Thus, the idea of fringe ideas would not be one of my immediate concerns. I always feel that there are more pertinent issues which are visible and measurable that we should focus on currently. This is the same thought process I hold behind not being an advocate of longtermism. I believe we already have very many important causes right now that I’d rather we focus on.
Another area I’m a bit skeptical about is the expansion of the empathy circle. For most of my life I’ve not had a lot of empathy towards non-human animals. I would not want them tortured, but I would not say that they deserve as much empathy as human beings. Again, I feel like our circle of empathy still has a long way to go in dealing with humans so conversations on expanding it to other sentient beings (and stretching the idea as far as algorithms) is not a cause I feel holds that much importance to me.
Finally, one of my biggest concerns is the urgency placed on climate change in the community. When talking of the most important causes, I feel like climate change is under-ranked as a massive danger to the future of our world. I find it misleading to place speculative causes such as AI risks, catastrophic pandemics, nuclear war, and great power conflicts ahead of climate change in importance because climate change is something we are currently experiencing and it’s only bound to get worse. In my opinion, climate change is the top risk as it promises to destabilise society in the next few compared to some other risks (the warming targets we have set are on course to be missed as soon as 2030). The more we continue sliding into worse climate scenarios, the more social issues shall arise and they shall very possibly lead to the rise of all these other risks - AI/nuclear/biological wars triggered by the race for resources such as water, higher land away from the rising oceans, productive soil, and many more. Thus, I believe the cause prioritization should be reconsidered to account for these second factor effects of climate change.
While I am not a longtermist, I would not choose an action that would directly put the lives of others at risk even in 200 years. In the scenario, we are told that the toxic waste shall leak, therefore, it’s definite that there shall be thousands of livers lost. Compared to the 100 lives that would be lost now, I would not risk that many lives even though they are far in the future. While we have talked about discount functions, it would be immoral to treat human lives in that way.
In the second scenario where we are asked about 200 years or 2000 years, temporal discounting comes at a higher rate. Thinking that far into the future is hard because it would need me to think of other things that might have happened, such as existential catastrophes that might wipe out humanity before then. In that case, I would do more evaluation such that if I have confidence that humanity would be wiped out in that time, then I would save the 100 people in the current time. However, this would only be in a case where I am very confident that humanity shall be lost by that time, meaning the toxic waste I bury would have no effect on people in that future.
Hello traditional Maasai Elders
I hope you are doing well and that the community is thriving. I am reaching out to you from the future with some information that is crucial to changing the direction of our community. This information is about the patriarchy practised in our community and why things should change.
It has long been held that men are the leaders of the community and that women should be subversive to them. In the current world, this is called sexism - the idea that people of one gender (women in this case) are inferior to the other. There are many reasons that you might have to think this way but they are unfounded.
Think of the things that women are put through in your time. Girls are taken out of school and married off early to older men of your choosing. They are then made to have children from an early age, without taking into account their consent. This is a violation of their rights - why would a person be denied the right to an education, the right to a life of freedom, the right to a choice of their life partner, the right to choose when to have children - just because of their gender?
Another great atrocity that your daughters, sisters, and wives have been put through is Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Imagine the pain they go through and the danger it poses to their health. In the modern world, this practice has been outlawed because it is such a massive violation. Please consider the effects and you shall see why this decision was made.
In the modern world, women are treated equally as men. This has led to incredible gains in development and societal growth that your descendants enjoy. Women are just as intelligent and hard-working as men and given the opportunity, they shall help your generation make changes that shall forever reverberate in the community all the way to my present times. Please give equality a chance, for everyone in the community and ensure for each to count for one and none for more and you shall reap the fruits.
Thank you,
Your son from a thriving future in which all genders are equal
Against Malaria Foundation: 77,000 cases of malaria prevented, with an estimated 12 lives saved.
I would choose the Against Malaria Foundation because it is one of the highest-impact charities on the list. The effectiveness is exceptionally high and would allow more lives to be saved compared to my other choice, the Malaria Consortium. It also addresses a problem that is larger in scale compared to my other choice, the Helen Keller Foundation with over 600,000 people dying of malaria annually. Therefore, the numbers themselves state that the Against Malaria Foundation is where I should direct my donation.
This statement has really stuck with me and shall be a guiding factor in many of the conversations I hold with people henceforth: "When thoughtful people with access to the same information reach very different conclusions from each other, we should be curious about why and we should actively encourage people to voice and investigate where those disagreements are coming from"