For me, though not directly discussed in reading, the staggering gaps in economy, and the poorly developed infrastructure for health and education, even in developed countries, is poorly managed and often mulled over in beauacracy far too much to make any signficant change. Something more in the readings, and something I was knowledgeable, but complicit in, was factory farming. As for full blown ex-risks, I would have to say the re-growing possibility of a nuclear fallout and the threat of bio-warfare. I want to say AI Safety as well, but from what I've seen, the AI bubble is prone to burst fantastically before we get that far. (Hopefully). Climate change is another great fear of mine, but that project focus is well accounted for.
Top 3? That would have to be the poor quality of food/health in many world areas (as it is getting better, but much too slowly), and likewise the two ex-risks I've written of (I fear escalation of existing conflicts).
Most likely, read more, but definitely start conversation with others to give me that "initial push" or recommendations.
For me, I do really enjoy research and I'm fairly good at computational mathematics (not so good at pure math). I do also find myself intrigued by philosophical questions, yet I feel this could be a supplement rather than my career goals.
I already can! I've joined one laboratory at my college, and I can more than likely join more over the next few years. I could also hazard to research more staff to talk to that focus on issues (immunology and neuro) that are of great interest to me. I will also be taking courses on ecology to see if that's a good avenue for my skills.
For what I'd like to do, I'd like to build a community of fellow future and current PhDs or researchers and subscribe to more journals that follow biological concepts. To pull in that philosophical interest, I can start reading more on theory that posits effective ways to make change.
I am aware that homosexuality is a scare of your time. Believe me, it is not nearly as bad as its made out to be. I understand that film often portrays them as selfish and villainous, but that's untrue. That's not even necessarily what film writers believe (though some surely do). There's actually specific codes in place that limit the way many characters like that are written--art under that isn't exactly a reflection of reality. Many of us have the same desires you do, of happiness and prosperity, a life of acceptance. They aren't deviants either. Statistics of my time show that they're no more or less likely than heterosexual people to be such. That's another damaging stereotype. The worrying reality is, a lot of such stereotypes come from people in power, and their own misguided fears. Though it's not necessarily easy for you, in such a politically rigid time, I hope that you and anyone else keeps a healthy questioning of power, using their own logic and knowledge to evaluate the soundness of their decisions. Recall, the government is for the needs of the many--and this includes people unlike yourself. And if you're worried of betraying religious teachings, the bible makes no mention of homosexuality (scholars believe that was a mistranslation). Furthermore, Jesus himself loved the outcasts--be like him some more. And this open attitude doesn't stop at sexuality. Some people are at odds with the gender they were assigned (their mind is truer than their body), but that doesn't get much attention until later. Still, keep an open mind to them and try to empathize with the struggle of being inside a body you don't believe to be yours. Act with compassion and consideration.
A good ancestor. One who has ancestors is a descendant. Descendants need not be a genetic lineage (not necessarily even human), but rather the constitution of the living world some time into the future. A good ancestor should act in the present, with a specific vision for the future. A good ancestor should ideally "add value" to the world, that is, reduce suffering one way or another. This of course could be through means of direct, focused work toward progression of a relevant and underserved cause, or by philanthropy of any means. A good ancestor is one who takes a look at every major action they take, every donation they make, beyond the numbers, and asks themselves, "how will this affect the world after I've gone?" They research this well and inform their opinions with such. A good ancestor provides.
A. $362,411.89 would be donated over the course of my lifetime.
I would consider New Incentives-Vaccines as it is a highly rated PREVENTATIVE charity. All are around $5K per life saved, but many people in this forum, and likely at large, have contributed to malaria treatment. However, a portion of this donation (about 33% each?) would also go to Helen Keller Intl (Vitamin A) and Malaria Consortium, as these are all preventative, clinical solutions to diseases in developing countries.
B. If I only had a thousand dollars, I would rather concentrate my efforts all into Malaria Consortium, as the statistics suggest that it is a long-term solution "protect a child from malaria," if more expensive than the $2 Helen Keller rate (this only supplies vitamins for a year).
C. Since I plan to go into academic research in biology, it is paramount to me that I consider a field that would actively save many lives (and preferably develop solutions to new or existing problems at low cost).
For me, though not directly discussed in reading, the staggering gaps in economy, and the poorly developed infrastructure for health and education, even in developed countries, is poorly managed and often mulled over in beauacracy far too much to make any signficant change. Something more in the readings, and something I was knowledgeable, but complicit in, was factory farming. As for full blown ex-risks, I would have to say the re-growing possibility of a nuclear fallout and the threat of bio-warfare. I want to say AI Safety as well, but from what I've seen, the AI bubble is prone to burst fantastically before we get that far. (Hopefully). Climate change is another great fear of mine, but that project focus is well accounted for.
Top 3? That would have to be the poor quality of food/health in many world areas (as it is getting better, but much too slowly), and likewise the two ex-risks I've written of (I fear escalation of existing conflicts).
Most likely, read more, but definitely start conversation with others to give me that "initial push" or recommendations.
For me, I do really enjoy research and I'm fairly good at computational mathematics (not so good at pure math). I do also find myself intrigued by philosophical questions, yet I feel this could be a supplement rather than my career goals.
I already can! I've joined one laboratory at my college, and I can more than likely join more over the next few years. I could also hazard to research more staff to talk to that focus on issues (immunology and neuro) that are of great interest to me. I will also be taking courses on ecology to see if that's a good avenue for my skills.
For what I'd like to do, I'd like to build a community of fellow future and current PhDs or researchers and subscribe to more journals that follow biological concepts. To pull in that philosophical interest, I can start reading more on theory that posits effective ways to make change.
Hello my Cold-War friend,
I am aware that homosexuality is a scare of your time. Believe me, it is not nearly as bad as its made out to be. I understand that film often portrays them as selfish and villainous, but that's untrue. That's not even necessarily what film writers believe (though some surely do). There's actually specific codes in place that limit the way many characters like that are written--art under that isn't exactly a reflection of reality. Many of us have the same desires you do, of happiness and prosperity, a life of acceptance. They aren't deviants either. Statistics of my time show that they're no more or less likely than heterosexual people to be such. That's another damaging stereotype. The worrying reality is, a lot of such stereotypes come from people in power, and their own misguided fears. Though it's not necessarily easy for you, in such a politically rigid time, I hope that you and anyone else keeps a healthy questioning of power, using their own logic and knowledge to evaluate the soundness of their decisions. Recall, the government is for the needs of the many--and this includes people unlike yourself. And if you're worried of betraying religious teachings, the bible makes no mention of homosexuality (scholars believe that was a mistranslation). Furthermore, Jesus himself loved the outcasts--be like him some more. And this open attitude doesn't stop at sexuality. Some people are at odds with the gender they were assigned (their mind is truer than their body), but that doesn't get much attention until later. Still, keep an open mind to them and try to empathize with the struggle of being inside a body you don't believe to be yours. Act with compassion and consideration.
I believe in you,
MD
A good ancestor. One who has ancestors is a descendant. Descendants need not be a genetic lineage (not necessarily even human), but rather the constitution of the living world some time into the future. A good ancestor should act in the present, with a specific vision for the future. A good ancestor should ideally "add value" to the world, that is, reduce suffering one way or another. This of course could be through means of direct, focused work toward progression of a relevant and underserved cause, or by philanthropy of any means. A good ancestor is one who takes a look at every major action they take, every donation they make, beyond the numbers, and asks themselves, "how will this affect the world after I've gone?" They research this well and inform their opinions with such. A good ancestor provides.
A. $362,411.89 would be donated over the course of my lifetime.
I would consider New Incentives-Vaccines as it is a highly rated PREVENTATIVE charity. All are around $5K per life saved, but many people in this forum, and likely at large, have contributed to malaria treatment. However, a portion of this donation (about 33% each?) would also go to Helen Keller Intl (Vitamin A) and Malaria Consortium, as these are all preventative, clinical solutions to diseases in developing countries.
B. If I only had a thousand dollars, I would rather concentrate my efforts all into Malaria Consortium, as the statistics suggest that it is a long-term solution "protect a child from malaria," if more expensive than the $2 Helen Keller rate (this only supplies vitamins for a year).
C. Since I plan to go into academic research in biology, it is paramount to me that I consider a field that would actively save many lives (and preferably develop solutions to new or existing problems at low cost).