First of all, I'm really sorry to hear about your condition.
Regarding your association: it sounds interesting, but I didn't fully understand - is it mental and social support for people who are dealing with serious illnesses, or does the organization claim to treat illnesses instead of medical treatments? What exactly does the organization do?
Kudos to you for caring and wanting to contribute!
Regarding your vision to contribute from the fields of art and humanities, I can tell you my personal thought on the matter - which only represents me, but maybe you will identify with it: with the progress of human knowledge and technology, the possibility of human society (and of every detail in it) to change the world is growing at an exponential rate.
This means that the most effective thing that can be done today for the sake of the future, is to pass on to future generations the desire to improve the world. Every effort we make to improve the world will translate into greater impact if we invest it in preserving the ideology. For example, if each generation invests 95% of its effort in spreading the ideology (of EA and related ideologies) to future generations, and 5% in searching for solutions with the tools we have today (the 5% can be seen as a kind of "dividends" from the investment of preserving the ideology), I believe That the future will be much better than if we put most of our efforts into finding solutions right now.
Fortunately for you, the humanities and arts can contribute greatly to efforts to preserve and propagate ideologies.
But this is not a simple task at all! For it to be effective, the messages themselves need to be relevant for the long term - more conceptual and less specific (for example, probably environmental advice that is important will not be relevant in 100, 200 or 5,000 years; but the understanding that all animals deserve rights will be relevant in the future as well).
In addition, the task of transferring ideas to the distant future is very difficult in itself. But it is possible: it has happened with a number of philosophical ideas, social and political ideas and religions.
I believe this could be a direction for what you are looking for.
Thank you! I will read again about the NTD organizations and their room for more funding.
What made it difficult for me to understand was when I read about the Gates Foundation's investment in organizations like Gavi and Sightsavers, and I got the feeling that my personal contribution to such causes would be imperceptible compared to the contribution of Gates (and other big donors).
Thank you. Indeed, I read about S-risks, and their treatment is important but very unpredictable (so much so, that some efforts to prevent long-term suffering can actually produce it). Until I make up my mind on the matter and direct my actions - both my contribution and my career - to the prevention of long-term suffering, in the meantime I am looking for more modest but safer options to prevent the suffering that exists at this moment
Hello, although I am not a philosopher, I know and read philosophy, and I hope I can answer your question. (In addition, I am new to the forum - this is my first response - so I apologize if I deviated from the norms or if I misunderstood the conversation).
I believe that the logic behind such sentences is a utilitarian view (Philosophy of Jeremy Bentham): "a little damage" is better than "complete damage". However, even with utilitarian considerations we must consider possible consequences of specific actions. For example: Is it possible that following a statement like this that you demonstrated, a third party will see and be legitimized to cause "little damage" instead of "zero damage"? Or, is it possible that the listener will thus be able to deal better with the conscience, and this will delay his future transition to "zero harm"? On the other hand, it is possible that without sentences like these, the listener will be silenced and will not be willing to think about the subject at all, and thanks to the gradual transition, he will be able to make a big change, which is difficult to make at once.
These considerations move the discussion from philosophy to psychology and cognition. I believe that scientific articles on cognitive dissonance, intuitive morality, and autosuggestion would be useful here
First of all, I'm really sorry to hear about your condition.
Regarding your association: it sounds interesting, but I didn't fully understand - is it mental and social support for people who are dealing with serious illnesses, or does the organization claim to treat illnesses instead of medical treatments? What exactly does the organization do?
Kudos to you for caring and wanting to contribute!
Regarding your vision to contribute from the fields of art and humanities, I can tell you my personal thought on the matter - which only represents me, but maybe you will identify with it: with the progress of human knowledge and technology, the possibility of human society (and of every detail in it) to change the world is growing at an exponential rate.
This means that the most effective thing that can be done today for the sake of the future, is to pass on to future generations the desire to improve the world. Every effort we make to improve the world will translate into greater impact if we invest it in preserving the ideology. For example, if each generation invests 95% of its effort in spreading the ideology (of EA and related ideologies) to future generations, and 5% in searching for solutions with the tools we have today (the 5% can be seen as a kind of "dividends" from the investment of preserving the ideology), I believe That the future will be much better than if we put most of our efforts into finding solutions right now.
Fortunately for you, the humanities and arts can contribute greatly to efforts to preserve and propagate ideologies.
But this is not a simple task at all! For it to be effective, the messages themselves need to be relevant for the long term - more conceptual and less specific (for example, probably environmental advice that is important will not be relevant in 100, 200 or 5,000 years; but the understanding that all animals deserve rights will be relevant in the future as well).
In addition, the task of transferring ideas to the distant future is very difficult in itself. But it is possible: it has happened with a number of philosophical ideas, social and political ideas and religions.
I believe this could be a direction for what you are looking for.
Good luck!
Thank you, I will read about them
Thank you! I will read again about the NTD organizations and their room for more funding.
What made it difficult for me to understand was when I read about the Gates Foundation's investment in organizations like Gavi and Sightsavers, and I got the feeling that my personal contribution to such causes would be imperceptible compared to the contribution of Gates (and other big donors).
Thank you. Indeed, I read about S-risks, and their treatment is important but very unpredictable (so much so, that some efforts to prevent long-term suffering can actually produce it). Until I make up my mind on the matter and direct my actions - both my contribution and my career - to the prevention of long-term suffering, in the meantime I am looking for more modest but safer options to prevent the suffering that exists at this moment
Thank you very much!
Thank you, I will read about it
Thank you very much! I will read about these organizations
Hello, although I am not a philosopher, I know and read philosophy, and I hope I can answer your question. (In addition, I am new to the forum - this is my first response - so I apologize if I deviated from the norms or if I misunderstood the conversation).
I believe that the logic behind such sentences is a utilitarian view (Philosophy of Jeremy Bentham): "a little damage" is better than "complete damage". However, even with utilitarian considerations we must consider possible consequences of specific actions. For example: Is it possible that following a statement like this that you demonstrated, a third party will see and be legitimized to cause "little damage" instead of "zero damage"? Or, is it possible that the listener will thus be able to deal better with the conscience, and this will delay his future transition to "zero harm"? On the other hand, it is possible that without sentences like these, the listener will be silenced and will not be willing to think about the subject at all, and thanks to the gradual transition, he will be able to make a big change, which is difficult to make at once.
These considerations move the discussion from philosophy to psychology and cognition. I believe that scientific articles on cognitive dissonance, intuitive morality, and autosuggestion would be useful here