9 ms·

What are the 10 most harmful jobs?

13 points by robertwiblin 11y ago

probably_wrong 11y ago
Factory farming considered worse than weapons research? Unless it refers to a specific kind of farming of which I'm not aware, I think the author led their own views cloud their judgement.
- robertwiblin 11y ago
  They aren't in order from worst to least worst. I've added a footnote to clarify this.
- Artistry121 11y ago
  Good point. It is possible that weapons research has positive externalities and a deterrence factor. The lack of any armed forces on this list is somewhat surprising - although definitely not all armed forces roles would belong. Agriculture and the systems built around it in much of the world has serious problems for the world and it's future.
  - robertwiblin 11y ago
    They were considered, see: "Military decision-makers" and "Working in the army" They didn't make the top ten in part for the reason you gave.
- BenjaminTodd 11y ago
  The list isn't in order.
geebee 11y ago
This wasn't a bad list. However, one factor I'd consider is the individual role's role and options. For instance, I've read (I think it was in "Fast food nation") that factory farms in the US are often staffed by people who are not legally permitted to work or reside in the US and who are at constant risk. They generally don't have much education or options, and have no recourse if they are mistreated on the job or denied pay. I'd also be disinclined to hold a burger flipper at macky d's responsible for, well, macky d's. A patent troll, on the other hand, is a well educated person, almost certainly a US citizen or someone with legal rights and options, who had every opportunity to choose a different path in life, and indeed still does. By the way, there's this job where you collect vast amounts of personal information about people, who may be unaware or only semi-aware of what is being collected, and then using sophisticated machine learning to get them to click on ads... where does that fall in the spectrum of harmful jobs?
- robertwiblin 11y ago
  Do you think you suffer when you click on an ad you think is relevant to you? I don't think internet ads do me much harm, especially well targeted ones I want to click on.
  - yellowapple 11y ago
    > I don't think internet ads do me much harm If you don't consider the absence of your own (or your loved ones') privacy as "harm", then perhaps the job of inducing such an absence of privacy wouldn't be considered "harmful" by your standards. By my standards, however, that is considered "harmful" - maybe not physically, but certainly psychologically. Do you not consider the eating of a Big Mac harmful for the eater just because the eater felt said Big Mac to be relevant to him/her?
  - Anderkent 11y ago
    Have you considered that a targetted add is much weaker signal than a non-targetted one? A non-targetted add is presumably more costly, thus signifying higher confidence of the maker in the value of the product.
dev360 11y ago
Liberal bias? Ridiculous article. Show me the republican version then we can reconcile.
- robertwiblin 11y ago
  What do you think conservatives would regard as the most harmful careers?
  - drewrv 11y ago
    Professors, scientists, and school teachers are regularly demonized by the republican party.
    - robertwiblin 11y ago
      Much as I would love to be a contrarian it's pretty implausible that they are the most harmful careers.
      - gd1 11y ago
        It's pretty implausible that farming is a harmful career as well. But, oh look, there they are at number 2.
        robertwiblin 11y ago
        Only factory farming of animals is on there, and given the suffering of the animals involved I think it's a complete no-brainer that it overall does harm.
        gd1 11y ago
        No it fucking doesn't. It feeds the human race.
        11y ago
rc4algorithm 11y ago
Christ. Has it ever occurred to these hipsters that factory farming feeds people? It's simple science that conventional farming is the only way to feed 7+ billion (soon to be 9+ billion) people. And referring to slaughtered chickens as "contributed deaths"... This makes me sad because I once had a little faith in this project.
- robertwiblin 11y ago
  A vegetarian diet is i) requires less land and energy, ii) as a result is cheaper and iii) per $ is as nutritious as factory farmed meat. People in poverty eat very little meat. In fact, all meat production and consumption, in addition to factory farming, can be objected to on the further ground that it raises food prices for the poor: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/business/worldbusiness/27iht-meat.1.9525251.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/business/worldbusiness/27i.... This is inevitable as meat production is 3-10x less energy and land efficient as eating plant products. Finally, do you think that the chickens do not die?
  - rc4algorithm 11y ago
    Do plants not die? Saying that people are causing death without clearly qualifying that its farm animals is childish. The environmental issue is legitimate, but they treated it as an afterthought. It also brings up issues of personal liberty and how much we know about vegetarianism's health effects. And yes, people in the third world eat very little meat. But, you know what? I bet a lot of them want to eat meat. Remember that that argument can be made about anything even remotely nonessential.
    - griffinmahon 11y ago
      The plants dying point is somewhat irrelevant in this context as 80,000 Hours's philosophy stems from Peter Singer's brand of utilitarian ethics that interpret suffering as it relates to experience, or consciousness.
      - 11y ago
aidenn0 11y ago
Obviously any such list will be colored by the ethical system of the author. Many people see zero harm in slaughtering animals for food. A large fraction of those also see a net positive in causing pain to those animals if it reduces costs. Some libertarians would see little to no harm done by those marketing harmful products, and instead ascribe the moral weight of the harm to the consumers. I'd be interested in seeing any empirical data on the weapons research angle. My understanding is that wars have been approximately equally deadly to the participants for much of recorded history. With the exception of weapons that are a risk for near-extinction level events, my intuition is that opposing sides in a war kill each other, regardless of how they are armed.
dillon_bowen 11y ago
This comments section reads like a bad joke. How many times do Rob and Ben have to cite the overwhelming empirical evidence that 1) factory farming really does harm animals (how does anyone doubt this?), and 2) factory farming is not preventing anyone from starving to death, before someone admits they were wrong?
yellowapple 11y ago
I was really hoping this would be something about jobs that are occupationally-hazardous, rather than an opinion piece judging various careers based on subjective notions of "good" and "bad" without any real qualification. Not that the points are wrong, but the authors could have delved further into why those careers are immoral ones to have. Also. > [raising animals for food] involves killing, which is both painful and perhaps immoral in itself. Not if done properly. There are numerous ways to kill an animal painlessly and quickly; the most high-tech I've personally seen is the use of a high-voltage electric current through the cranium of an animal (usually when working with cows), which pretty much immediately shuts down the brain and any consciousness the animal might have. Sedation/anaesthesia also helps significantly. Smaller livestock can be decapitated (which, while likely not painless per se, is quick if done properly) or a probe can be jammed into the cranium to "stir" the brain and quickly shut it down (this is something you may have very well experienced firsthand in your run-of-the-mill frog dissection from grade school). I personally disagree with the immorality (humans are naturally predators; I don't judge my dog for eating meat, nor do I judge some guy walking down the street with a bucket of fried chicken), but I realize that not everyone feels the same, and I do agree with the immorality of factory farming.

13 points by robertwiblin 11y ago

Factory farming considered worse than weapons research? Unless it refers to a specific kind of farming of which I'm not aware, I think the author led their own views cloud their judgement.

robertwiblin 11y ago
They aren't in order from worst to least worst. I've added a footnote to clarify this.
Artistry121 11y ago
Good point. It is possible that weapons research has positive externalities and a deterrence factor. The lack of any armed forces on this list is somewhat surprising - although definitely not all armed forces roles would belong. Agriculture and the systems built around it in much of the world has serious problems for the world and it's future.
- robertwiblin 11y ago
  They were considered, see: "Military decision-makers" and "Working in the army" They didn't make the top ten in part for the reason you gave.
BenjaminTodd 11y ago
The list isn't in order.

geebee 11y ago

This wasn't a bad list. However, one factor I'd consider is the individual role's role and options. For instance, I've read (I think it was in "Fast food nation") that factory farms in the US are often staffed by people who are not legally permitted to work or reside in the US and who are at constant risk. They generally don't have much education or options, and have no recourse if they are mistreated on the job or denied pay. I'd also be disinclined to hold a burger flipper at macky d's responsible for, well, macky d's. A patent troll, on the other hand, is a well educated person, almost certainly a US citizen or someone with legal rights and options, who had every opportunity to choose a different path in life, and indeed still does. By the way, there's this job where you collect vast amounts of personal information about people, who may be unaware or only semi-aware of what is being collected, and then using sophisticated machine learning to get them to click on ads... where does that fall in the spectrum of harmful jobs?

robertwiblin 11y ago
Do you think you suffer when you click on an ad you think is relevant to you? I don't think internet ads do me much harm, especially well targeted ones I want to click on.
- yellowapple 11y ago
  > I don't think internet ads do me much harm If you don't consider the absence of your own (or your loved ones') privacy as "harm", then perhaps the job of inducing such an absence of privacy wouldn't be considered "harmful" by your standards. By my standards, however, that is considered "harmful" - maybe not physically, but certainly psychologically. Do you not consider the eating of a Big Mac harmful for the eater just because the eater felt said Big Mac to be relevant to him/her?
- Anderkent 11y ago
  Have you considered that a targetted add is much weaker signal than a non-targetted one? A non-targetted add is presumably more costly, thus signifying higher confidence of the maker in the value of the product.

dev360 11y ago

Liberal bias? Ridiculous article. Show me the republican version then we can reconcile.

robertwiblin 11y ago
What do you think conservatives would regard as the most harmful careers?
- drewrv 11y ago
  Professors, scientists, and school teachers are regularly demonized by the republican party.
  - robertwiblin 11y ago
    Much as I would love to be a contrarian it's pretty implausible that they are the most harmful careers.
    - gd1 11y ago
      It's pretty implausible that farming is a harmful career as well. But, oh look, there they are at number 2.
      - robertwiblin 11y ago
        Only factory farming of animals is on there, and given the suffering of the animals involved I think it's a complete no-brainer that it overall does harm.
        gd1 11y ago
        No it fucking doesn't. It feeds the human race.
        11y ago

rc4algorithm 11y ago

Christ. Has it ever occurred to these hipsters that factory farming feeds people? It's simple science that conventional farming is the only way to feed 7+ billion (soon to be 9+ billion) people. And referring to slaughtered chickens as "contributed deaths"... This makes me sad because I once had a little faith in this project.

robertwiblin 11y ago
A vegetarian diet is i) requires less land and energy, ii) as a result is cheaper and iii) per $ is as nutritious as factory farmed meat. People in poverty eat very little meat. In fact, all meat production and consumption, in addition to factory farming, can be objected to on the further ground that it raises food prices for the poor: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/business/worldbusiness/27iht-meat.1.9525251.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/business/worldbusiness/27i.... This is inevitable as meat production is 3-10x less energy and land efficient as eating plant products. Finally, do you think that the chickens do not die?
- rc4algorithm 11y ago
  Do plants not die? Saying that people are causing death without clearly qualifying that its farm animals is childish. The environmental issue is legitimate, but they treated it as an afterthought. It also brings up issues of personal liberty and how much we know about vegetarianism's health effects. And yes, people in the third world eat very little meat. But, you know what? I bet a lot of them want to eat meat. Remember that that argument can be made about anything even remotely nonessential.
  - griffinmahon 11y ago
    The plants dying point is somewhat irrelevant in this context as 80,000 Hours's philosophy stems from Peter Singer's brand of utilitarian ethics that interpret suffering as it relates to experience, or consciousness.
    - 11y ago

aidenn0 11y ago

Obviously any such list will be colored by the ethical system of the author. Many people see zero harm in slaughtering animals for food. A large fraction of those also see a net positive in causing pain to those animals if it reduces costs. Some libertarians would see little to no harm done by those marketing harmful products, and instead ascribe the moral weight of the harm to the consumers. I'd be interested in seeing any empirical data on the weapons research angle. My understanding is that wars have been approximately equally deadly to the participants for much of recorded history. With the exception of weapons that are a risk for near-extinction level events, my intuition is that opposing sides in a war kill each other, regardless of how they are armed.

dillon_bowen 11y ago

This comments section reads like a bad joke. How many times do Rob and Ben have to cite the overwhelming empirical evidence that 1) factory farming really does harm animals (how does anyone doubt this?), and 2) factory farming is not preventing anyone from starving to death, before someone admits they were wrong?

yellowapple 11y ago

I was really hoping this would be something about jobs that are occupationally-hazardous, rather than an opinion piece judging various careers based on subjective notions of "good" and "bad" without any real qualification. Not that the points are wrong, but the authors could have delved further into why those careers are immoral ones to have. Also. > [raising animals for food] involves killing, which is both painful and perhaps immoral in itself. Not if done properly. There are numerous ways to kill an animal painlessly and quickly; the most high-tech I've personally seen is the use of a high-voltage electric current through the cranium of an animal (usually when working with cows), which pretty much immediately shuts down the brain and any consciousness the animal might have. Sedation/anaesthesia also helps significantly. Smaller livestock can be decapitated (which, while likely not painless per se, is quick if done properly) or a probe can be jammed into the cranium to "stir" the brain and quickly shut it down (this is something you may have very well experienced firsthand in your run-of-the-mill frog dissection from grade school). I personally disagree with the immorality (humans are naturally predators; I don't judge my dog for eating meat, nor do I judge some guy walking down the street with a bucket of fried chicken), but I realize that not everyone feels the same, and I do agree with the immorality of factory farming.