Thank you for this post. To be honest, I have also been troubled by some educational barriers in the future recently, but I firmly believe that a solution will be found, even if it will take me further than ordinary people
Hi, I think it's too absolute to prohibit harming and killing animals. Humans need animals to supplement proteins and other organic substances (although some organic substances can be obtained through other means). I do not advocate for a complete ban, nor do I support completely unrestricted slaughter. If possible, I hope to treat these animals in a more humane way. Alternatively, there is a possibility that with future technological advancements, we may not need to eat animals but instead consume lab-grown meat.
I always feel that any critical rejection of whether or not to have children is unethical. People have the freedom to make their own choices, rather than being bound by popular definitions. Whether to have children is not to meet the needs of society, but to have them out of desire or willingness. I don't want to see whether having children becomes a tool for societal moral blackmail
I am glad that someone has noticed this. In fact, I am also concerned about policies related to animal welfare. But I want to say, it's difficult to achieve. Because there is no interest driving them to improve this. Unless it is profitable or the cost of animal abuse increases, it will not be easily changed
I don’t believe effective altruism is entirely selfless, just as Nietzsche likened the sun’s giving—yet he ultimately went mad. We practice altruism on the foundation of ensuring our own survival; in other words, we prioritize self-interest before aiding others. This isn’t selfishness—it’s a form of self-care.
From a biological perspective, our ancestors sought advantage and avoided harm, surviving in the wilderness. The dangers of survival forged an instinct for self-preservation, an unavoidable trait that persists to this day. Psychologically, effective altruism can stimulate dopamine secretion in the brain, generating pleasure and a sense of reward. When this reward fades, people might anxiously question whether they’ve been altruistic enough—but at its core, this reflection is still a form of altruism.
As you said, energy is neither created nor destroyed—or perhaps the same applies to the profits generated by capital. No matter how high global GDP climbs, the economy remains a cycle: the money donated to the impoverished eventually returns to me in some form, and I, in turn, spend it, sending it back into circulation. So, if we don’t overanalyze it, altruism ultimately benefits the self. Holding onto some assets doesn’t make us selfish—it’s a necessity. Prioritizing oneself is also a way of practicing self-love.
Thank you for this post. To be honest, I have also been troubled by some educational barriers in the future recently, but I firmly believe that a solution will be found, even if it will take me further than ordinary people
Hi, I think it's too absolute to prohibit harming and killing animals. Humans need animals to supplement proteins and other organic substances (although some organic substances can be obtained through other means). I do not advocate for a complete ban, nor do I support completely unrestricted slaughter. If possible, I hope to treat these animals in a more humane way. Alternatively, there is a possibility that with future technological advancements, we may not need to eat animals but instead consume lab-grown meat.
I always feel that any critical rejection of whether or not to have children is unethical. People have the freedom to make their own choices, rather than being bound by popular definitions. Whether to have children is not to meet the needs of society, but to have them out of desire or willingness. I don't want to see whether having children becomes a tool for societal moral blackmail
I am glad that someone has noticed this. In fact, I am also concerned about policies related to animal welfare. But I want to say, it's difficult to achieve. Because there is no interest driving them to improve this. Unless it is profitable or the cost of animal abuse increases, it will not be easily changed
I don’t believe effective altruism is entirely selfless, just as Nietzsche likened the sun’s giving—yet he ultimately went mad. We practice altruism on the foundation of ensuring our own survival; in other words, we prioritize self-interest before aiding others. This isn’t selfishness—it’s a form of self-care.
From a biological perspective, our ancestors sought advantage and avoided harm, surviving in the wilderness. The dangers of survival forged an instinct for self-preservation, an unavoidable trait that persists to this day. Psychologically, effective altruism can stimulate dopamine secretion in the brain, generating pleasure and a sense of reward. When this reward fades, people might anxiously question whether they’ve been altruistic enough—but at its core, this reflection is still a form of altruism.
As you said, energy is neither created nor destroyed—or perhaps the same applies to the profits generated by capital. No matter how high global GDP climbs, the economy remains a cycle: the money donated to the impoverished eventually returns to me in some form, and I, in turn, spend it, sending it back into circulation. So, if we don’t overanalyze it, altruism ultimately benefits the self. Holding onto some assets doesn’t make us selfish—it’s a necessity. Prioritizing oneself is also a way of practicing self-love.