Epistemic Status: The decision process here is intentionally vague, and is designed to be a short-term launchpad for those new to EA, or those going through an existential crisis. This is not for the more active members of this community, but rather for people who haven't figured it all out yet, or haven't yet gotten comfortable with living in uncertainty.
This world can often feel utterly indifferent, which can feel demotivating and can lead to some (literally and epistemically) dangerous places. I personally don't know what the meaning of life is, but I have found a short-term framework for myself that seems worth sharing.
When you are searching for meaning, there are many memetic ideas that want your attention. LessWrong has incredible resources for sifting through these ideas, yet it can be a bit much when you just want to figure out what the next step should be. Philosophy can be quite daunting, and that work isn't for everyone, despite how needed it is for motivation.
I propose that if you only want to take the next step forward, you should temporarily lay aside concerns on what it all means, and place bets that someone else will figure this out. Of course, this doesn't solve the problem of sorting out meaning for yourself, but it does remove the fog that can cloud long-term vision.
This idea first found me when considering poverty and child mortality. I was saddened by the thought of the potential number of Einsteins or cancer researchers, who could have made great progress to our world, but instead may have died prematurely, been poverty stricken, or even stuck in a low-wage job living paycheck-to-paycheck. This was emotional enough to get started down my path of Effective Altruism, but it's not quite accurate. A careful look at history has shown time and time again, that many of the ideas that we credit one person for was simultaneously developed by others, as if these ideas arise independently of their creators. It seems to be that the situations that people are in matter much more than the people themselves. The most famous example, of course, is the telephone patent. Alexander Graham Bell gets the credit for inventing the telephone because he was the first person to patent it, even though Elisha Gray also came up with the idea independently, and submitted his patent on the same day, just a few hours later. This pattern of independent innovation isn't limited to just technological progress, but moral and philosophical progress too. Both Evangelical Christians and Secular European Philosophers came to the same conclusion of the slave trade being unjust.
Given that progress comes from the situations people find themselves in, perhaps that means if we reduce the number of unnecessary deaths or empower people currently alive, it could result in significant progress being made, not just in technological sectors, but in philosophical ones too. Raising the amount of people in the conditions necessary raises the chance of these ideas being discovered, which then increases the likelihood that the discovery comes sooner. (While I don't have evidence supporting the conclusion that a higher headcount leads to a higher rate of progress, it seems intuitive that two people working on a problem is better than one. The Multiple-Discovery Hypothesis is well documented however.)
If you're unsure about what the meaning of life is, or are unsatisfied with any of the options you've come across so far, a good option could be to stay unsure, and work on things that would result in the number of people working on these problems growing, which could be anywhere from reducing child mortality to improving education. Embracing the uncertainty and pressing forward regardless can keep you out of epistemic traps and give you a direction towards doing good.
Epistemic Status: The decision process here is intentionally vague, and is designed to be a short-term launchpad for those new to EA, or those going through an existential crisis. This is not for the more active members of this community, but rather for people who haven't figured it all out yet, or haven't yet gotten comfortable with living in uncertainty.
This world can often feel utterly indifferent, which can feel demotivating and can lead to some (literally and epistemically) dangerous places. I personally don't know what the meaning of life is, but I have found a short-term framework for myself that seems worth sharing.
When you are searching for meaning, there are many memetic ideas that want your attention. LessWrong has incredible resources for sifting through these ideas, yet it can be a bit much when you just want to figure out what the next step should be. Philosophy can be quite daunting, and that work isn't for everyone, despite how needed it is for motivation.
I propose that if you only want to take the next step forward, you should temporarily lay aside concerns on what it all means, and place bets that someone else will figure this out. Of course, this doesn't solve the problem of sorting out meaning for yourself, but it does remove the fog that can cloud long-term vision.
This idea first found me when considering poverty and child mortality. I was saddened by the thought of the potential number of Einsteins or cancer researchers, who could have made great progress to our world, but instead may have died prematurely, been poverty stricken, or even stuck in a low-wage job living paycheck-to-paycheck. This was emotional enough to get started down my path of Effective Altruism, but it's not quite accurate. A careful look at history has shown time and time again, that many of the ideas that we credit one person for was simultaneously developed by others, as if these ideas arise independently of their creators. It seems to be that the situations that people are in matter much more than the people themselves. The most famous example, of course, is the telephone patent. Alexander Graham Bell gets the credit for inventing the telephone because he was the first person to patent it, even though Elisha Gray also came up with the idea independently, and submitted his patent on the same day, just a few hours later. This pattern of independent innovation isn't limited to just technological progress, but moral and philosophical progress too. Both Evangelical Christians and Secular European Philosophers came to the same conclusion of the slave trade being unjust.
Given that progress comes from the situations people find themselves in, perhaps that means if we reduce the number of unnecessary deaths or empower people currently alive, it could result in significant progress being made, not just in technological sectors, but in philosophical ones too. Raising the amount of people in the conditions necessary raises the chance of these ideas being discovered, which then increases the likelihood that the discovery comes sooner. (While I don't have evidence supporting the conclusion that a higher headcount leads to a higher rate of progress, it seems intuitive that two people working on a problem is better than one. The Multiple-Discovery Hypothesis is well documented however.)
If you're unsure about what the meaning of life is, or are unsatisfied with any of the options you've come across so far, a good option could be to stay unsure, and work on things that would result in the number of people working on these problems growing, which could be anywhere from reducing child mortality to improving education. Embracing the uncertainty and pressing forward regardless can keep you out of epistemic traps and give you a direction towards doing good.