A third comment, because it's a third unrelated topic:
The quantity of downvotes suggests that you have developed an anti-fan club here. You'd expect to encounter resistance if you are saying true and important things that make people uncomfortable. But having a devoted club of detractors might be a sign that you could think about your messaging strategy. What if you could say true and important things in a way that doesn't make people so uncomfortable that they refuse to think about them?
LessWrongers love epistemic humbleness and wriiting meant to inform rather than persuade.
As I said in my other comment, I think the downvotes are uncalled for and emotionally motivated. But perhaps this is a hint to what tone would reach past those barriers and actually change more minds?
A couple specific thoughts, even though I haven't thought about this much:
In this piece, the claim that even a selfishly motivated person might benefit by taking the pledge is very interesting. More evidence and argument on this point might be useful.
Your presentation is already oriented around the opportunity (positive-valenced) rather than the obligation (negative-valenced and therefore unpleasant to think about) of doing good. The descriptions of tragedy and suffering are definitely negative-valenced.
The statements "I think you should too" may offer the reader an excuse to take offense. "Should" is a very vague term and usually connected to an unstated value judgment. Here you may mean "if you did this it would improve the situation by your own current value judgment", the least suspicious use of "should".
In my experience, changing minds requires gently presenting arguments in a way that does not provide too much impetus or excuse for the listener to avoid thinking about them, walking away, and hoping that the person convinces themselves. This post on how to actually change minds definitely rang true to me: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/D2GrrrrfipHWPJSHh/book-review-how-minds-change
Anyway those are just some random thoughts; do with them what you will.
To the substance: If you're that serious about utlilitarianism/ doing good, why aren't you focused on AI alignment? I personally find the argument that we're sitting at the hinge of history and can influence the entire future of the lightcone, creating an amount of joy that truly boggles the mind if we succeed. This logic would appear to make work toward success on creating aligned and beneficial AGI dwarf all other charitable works, even if the probabilities and timelines are off by several orders of magnitude. The real possibility that this is happening soon and currently hangs on a knifes edge isn't even necessary to consider.
Perhaps you feel unequipped to help with that project? It would still make sense to devote your efforts to getting equipped.
Yeah I'm not really equipped to do AI alignment and I have lower P doom than others, but I agree it's important and it's one of the places I donate.
Who goes around downvoting this stuff without saying what they object to? It's a free world and you can downvote what you want, but to me it looks suspiciously like shouting SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP when someone is making arguments that are reasonable, but you find uncomfortable to hear.
Where's the counterargument or community norm violation? This looks well-written, rational, and important-if-true, prime stuff for this community. It's not a new argument, but that doesn't usually lead to such an enthusiastic downvoting.
This looks well-written, rational, and important-if-true
My general experience is that anything touted as important-if-true is neither. I find this to be as reliable a rule as Betteridge’s Law of Headlines (if the headline is a question the answer is “no”). Indeed, the two rules are closely related: the headlines “Scientists may have found…” and “Have scientists found…?” are interchangeable.
I agree. I pass up pieces with those titles. But I don't think it applies to this piece. The author didn't pitch it that way, I did. And in fact I think it is true and important, and that there is a lot of emotional hang up and resistance to accepting that we are all falling far, far short of the level of ethics we'd like to imagine we have. I have not taken the giving what we can pledge, so I don't exactly agree with the author's conclusions and I don't think the logic is nearly tight enough. But I think the question of whether we should all take that pledge or similar things is very much an open one; the claim that we'd be happier if we did seems quite plausible to me and very much worthy of debate on lesswrong. I'm disturbed to see it get downvotes instead of debate; I think if a less sensitive and equally important topic was written about this poorly it would be treated much more kindly. The claim that this has been debated to death already so we need not engage with repetitive and bad versions seems simply false to me. I have lived on less wrong for the last 3 years and seen no serious debate of this topic in that time, nor a hint of an accepted consensus.
I happen to think that solving alignment trumps all other ethical concerns, so I'm not going to be the one to do a better treatment here. But I am disappointed in the community for being so hostile to this person's attempts.
I have previously critiqued Bentham's Bulldog's writing on here. This seems also relatively low-quality along similar lines as previous critiques. You should not expect an explanation for each individual instance (and more broadly, demanding explanations, especially given the reasonable expectation of follow-up and associated stress, is quite costly).
I care about many EA principles, and my reaction is definitely not "SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP" about arguments I am uncomfortable about hearing, it's just that this author just makes a lot of really low-quality arguments that mostly consist of applause lights. There are many great authors writing about similar ideas who I do respect a lot.
Can you give an example? I addressed your previous (in my view, quite unpersuasive) objections at some length https://benthams.substack.com/p/you-cant-tell-how-conscious-animals
Crosspost of my blog article.
I just took the Giving What We Can pledge, which is a pledge to give away at least 10% of my income over the course of my life to highly effective charities. I think you should take it too!
We live in a time of unprecedented prosperity and abundance. Americans today live like kings in the ancient past. We have access to technology that would have been considered magic even just a few hundred years ago. Even relatively poor Americans are richer than nearly everyone who has ever lived.
At the same time, the world is filled with huge and pressing problems. Children whose parents survive on two dollars a day die in their beds, because their parents can’t afford medical care. Animals by the billions are tortured in factory farms. Existential threats imperil the entire future.
For this reason, I pledged to take a small haircut (at least 10% of my income) to address the world’s most pressing problems. For a while I’ve been giving more than 10% of my earnings to effective charities (somewhere around 20%). But now, for the first time, I took the official pledge.
It’s staggering just how much good one person can do. You can help many animals per dollar by donating to effective animal charities. For a few thousand dollars you can save a person’s life (and if you buy my weird insect arguments, each dollar given to GiveWell can save thousands of insects from a lifetime of suffering). And money donated to Longtermist charities can potentially, in expectation, bring about many lifetimes of bliss per dollar.
There’s a lot about ethics that isn’t obvious. It’s hard to know whether utilitarianism is the right ethical theory, whether desert is real, and which theory of well-being is right. But other ethical issues aren’t difficult. Whether people should give some of their money to prevent immense needless death and suffering is among the least tricky ethical issues. If you give away, say, 10% of your earnings, and earn 50,000 dollars a year, you can save a whole, entire human life every year.
(You can prevent someone like the adorable child displayed in the photo above from dying every year by giving away 10% of your income!)
That’s insane! It’s incredible that we have such profound ability to do good. We’ve all lost loved ones, and we all know how tragic it is for a life to be lost. You can prevent that every single year if you earn the median U.S. income and donate 10%. And for the same amount of money, every year you can spare thousands of animals from a lifetime in a cage or save 75 million shrimp from a painful death! By giving away 10% of the income of the median American every year, you can help a number of animals greater than the human population of the U.K..
One of life’s greatest tragedies is the loss of a child. It’s a tragedy so profound, it leaves a lasting impact on all the people who ever knew the child. The world no longer has the child in it, no longer with their laughs or cries, no longer with the ability to grow older, make friends, and fall in love. There is a void where the child used to be.
I signed the Giving What We Can pledge because I recognize that routinely preventing that scale of tragedy is worth spending at least 10% of my income on.
I think you should do the same.
Part of the reason is altruistic. By donating even modest amounts of money, you can prevent horrifying things from happening to lots of others. But even if you’re self-interested, you should still take the pledge. Those who give more tend to be happier and more fulfilled.
The world is gripped by a profound crisis of meaning. Lots of people feel hollow and empty, despite advanced technology and unprecedented wealth. Though their momentary existence is pleasant, it’s not connected to a deeper narrative. There’s nothing deeper they work towards. Making helping others a significant part of your life is an excellent way to make your life meaningful. A self-centered life is nihilistic and meaningless.
You’ll live a happier life if you feel like your life is working towards some important goal. If when you turn 80, you know you’ve helped hundreds of people and millions of animals, you’ll be able to look back on your life with deep pride. You won’t, like so many, feel you’ve wasted your life on social media, at parties, and in pursuit of cheap pleasure. You’ll know you spent your life on something greater, something that mattered, something truly important.
You’ll know that there are adults in the world who only survived childhood because of your donation. You’ll know that there are thousands of animals who didn’t have to rot in a cage because of your donation. You’ll know that you worked towards making the world a better place. When your time finally comes, you’ll be able to look back on all the ways you made the world better and smile.
I am not suggesting you give away all your money, bringing yourself down to the poverty line for this. But at the very least, I suggest you give 10%. Helping others should be a non-trivial part of a life well lived. Even if you earn the median U.S. income, after giving away 10% of your income, you’ll still be one of the richest few percent of people who ever lived.
Ultimately, I took the pledge because saving others from death and suffering is worth more than a bit of extra expenditure. Others matter, whether they’re far away people or animals of a different species. They matter enough, that I plan, for the rest of my life, to give away some portion of my money to helping them, and I hope you do the same!
Anyone who takes the Giving What We Can pledge and sets up routine donations in response to this article gets an automatic subscription to the blog!