There's a difference between long-termism, and OVERDOING long-termism. In flesh protest works, because it generate attention, and increases organisation of people.
You're never going be prepared to protest, if you don't protest.
I think a small team of people should focus on shrimp, I doubt, it's the most efficient way. I'm vegan yet....I think it's not the best idea ever. I can't believe people use linkedin, non-ironically.
Self-report, is like popular sentiment unreliable. If you'd use Schopenhauer's method, you'd measure happiness by lack of privation. Remove a thing, see if the person feels worse.
Using numbers seems to have a limit.
"As remained remarkably flat over the last few decades, even in countries like Germany, the UK, China, and India that have experienced huge GDP growth."
Sleep deprivation, screen addiction, and increase of sight problems are a likely cause, urban sprawl and so on...
A high GDP's not the problem...
Are kids ever polled for happiness? If you take only one sample, it's gonna be bad. If you take a smaple every year, from 3 to 70, it'll work better.
Easterlin paradox isn't true.
If you want to measure, in a less skewed way, use MORE indicators, avoid Hoefstader's law.
It's also false, that growth did not benefit the average person, since it did. How many had e-readers, wireless headphones, and flat-screens in 2005?
Maybe, just age makes people sad? Maybe
That makes me more pessimistic about finding the relationship between biological indicators and self-reported human welfare.
Weight? Reported hours of sleep? Nearsightedness out of 10?
What limits population, is farmable land. You shouldn't worry about the rest. Malthusianism has been disproven many times.
A world with 20 billion people is as good. Humanity will leave its cradle one day, and go to the stars.
A world with 1 billion of people would be less innovative, sicker. If you look at past times: low population has not guaranteed anything to be better.
Economic theory predicts more people actually will stimulate demand for services, innovation and more.
As always population mostly has been limited by human organisation, technology, and food. Not by else. A 20 billion world is wholly liveable, more innovative, with slightly taller skyscrappers.
You people need to learn more about economics. Humans are very creative at increasing life quality. My nearby shops now has a system locker to rent an electronic device 1 day that's automated, that's what economies of scale are.
Out of EA's problems, elitism is the smallest.
There we are with the ludic fallacy. We're probably wrong about 80 % 100 % of time.
There's a difference between long-termism, and OVERDOING long-termism. In flesh protest works, because it generate attention, and increases organisation of people.
You're never going be prepared to protest, if you don't protest.
I think a small team of people should focus on shrimp, I doubt, it's the most efficient way. I'm vegan yet....I think it's not the best idea ever. I can't believe people use linkedin, non-ironically.
𒂷 𒈨
"Ge-men"
"I am"
Self-report, is like popular sentiment unreliable. If you'd use Schopenhauer's method, you'd measure happiness by lack of privation. Remove a thing, see if the person feels worse.
Using numbers seems to have a limit.
"As remained remarkably flat over the last few decades, even in countries like Germany, the UK, China, and India that have experienced huge GDP growth."
Sleep deprivation, screen addiction, and increase of sight problems are a likely cause, urban sprawl and so on...
A high GDP's not the problem...
Are kids ever polled for happiness? If you take only one sample, it's gonna be bad. If you take a smaple every year, from 3 to 70, it'll work better.
Easterlin paradox isn't true.
If you want to measure, in a less skewed way, use MORE indicators, avoid Hoefstader's law.
It's also false, that growth did not benefit the average person, since it did. How many had e-readers, wireless headphones, and flat-screens in 2005?
Maybe, just age makes people sad? Maybe
Weight? Reported hours of sleep? Nearsightedness out of 10?
Here are indicators that work pretty well.
What limits population, is farmable land. You shouldn't worry about the rest. Malthusianism has been disproven many times.
A world with 20 billion people is as good. Humanity will leave its cradle one day, and go to the stars.
A world with 1 billion of people would be less innovative, sicker. If you look at past times: low population has not guaranteed anything to be better.
Economic theory predicts more people actually will stimulate demand for services, innovation and more.
As always population mostly has been limited by human organisation, technology, and food. Not by else. A 20 billion world is wholly liveable, more innovative, with slightly taller skyscrappers.
You people need to learn more about economics. Humans are very creative at increasing life quality. My nearby shops now has a system locker to rent an electronic device 1 day that's automated, that's what economies of scale are.
Pacifism is the winner ideology. Militarism is for losers.
For real, declinism is a moronic ideology, I don't have a much kinder or better way to tell.
People should stop wanting to be on the lookout....
AI, impact has been mostly limited. The very serious the economist reports.
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/07/02/what-happened-to-the-artificial-intelligence-revolution
It's true in everyday's life, and I think AI's overfocus, is just insane.
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/05/26/why-ai-hasnt-taken-your-job
There again, that's an overblown thing. AI's fine. Why would AI, be exceptionnal compared to other tech?