4 ms·

Especially if it's in high-impact/low-probability causes that are starved for money. Small amounts there could make big differences if they pay off. Eliezer Yu

Especially if it's in high-impact/low-probability causes that are starved for money. Small amounts there could make big differences if they pay off. Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote a lot about this on LessWrong.com, about how dog shelters get a lot more money than existential risk prevention (singinst.org or Lifeboat.com), Friendly AI research (singinst.org again) or finding cures to the diseases of aging (sens.org). Of course, puppies deserve our help. But do they deserve more resources than the kinds of things I mentioned above? Or is this just the way our cognitive biases steer us, pulling at our heart strings against our best interest? A couple of wealthy people could easily double the amount of research in those fields (in fact, Peter Thiel, formely of Paypal did pledge a few millions, but more are needed).

vl 16y ago
While I understand your point, I think that most people don't know what "existential risk prevention" is. And quite frankly, websites you linked to (except sens.org) convey impression of overly-paranoid semi-crazy science fiction, which is unlikely to win funding over puppies.
- khafra 16y ago
  That's part of the point--people irrationally care more about the marginal puppy than the marginal degree of killer asteroid/supervolcano/nuclear war prevention. If you're one of the few people who care about making a small contribution toward preventing nuclear war than a large contribution toward saving a single puppy, the websites look much saner.
  - ahoyhere 16y ago
    I'm late to the party, but rationally speaking... Chance that a bunch of nice, sane, ordinary people can save the lives of lots of cute animals (or hell, humans)? Very good. Chance that a bunch of crazy people with their crazy web site can stop aging, or better yet, stop an asteroid? Slim to none.
    - khafra 16y ago
      In order to speak rationally about it, you would have to give the likelihood ratio you believe they could reduce the sum of existential threats by, however low that is; then multiply that by the utility you would receive from saving human civilization. Compare this to the utility you receive from saving a puppy, multiplied by the probability of saving that puppy. Compare the two numbers. Rationality means thinking quantitatively where applicable, not qualitatively.
- MikeCapone 16y ago
  For those who want to learn more: http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk
bad_user 16y ago
> finding cures to the diseases of aging I'll be also be old and sick someday, and I think that accepting the fact that you're going to die eventually will make you happier. I also have a cynical view on ... increasing the life span of people can only be harmful to anybody. > Or is this just the way our cognitive biases steer us, pulling at our heart strings against our best interest? Again, what makes you so sure it's in our best interest?
- MikeCapone 16y ago
  > I'll be also be old and sick someday, and I think that accepting the fact that you're going to die eventually will make you happier. > I also have a cynical view on ... increasing the life span of people can only be harmful to anybody. This reaction is totally rational as long as you believe that aging is both bad and inevitable. It's called the pro-aging trance. If we were hit by a baseball bat on the head every week and there was nothing we could do, over time we would also rationalize why it's good. But if you were to ask someone who had never been hit on the head if he wanted too, he would say no. In the same way, if you asked someone who biologically stayed with the body of a 25 years old if he wanted to get frail, he would say no. As soon as someone proves that the diseases of aging aren't inevitable (say, by making a mouse live in good health for 10x the normal lifespan), the pro-aging transe will be broken. Listen to the part about the pro-aging transe here: http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_ag... Your body is already repairing most of the damage of aging and replacing most of your cells over time. It's just that there are certain kinds of damage that we haven't evolved to repair, and over time they add up. Past certain thresholds they cause pathologies, and we get frail, suffer and die. But if we can periodically repair that damage (without the need to understand all of metabolism, just the damage), we can avoid ever getting close to these thresholds. > Again, what makes you so sure it's in our best interest? Not being killed by an asteroid or a supervolcano is pretty obviously in our best interest, as well as not dying from cancer or alzheimers. If I put a gun to your daughter's or your fiancee's head, you'd feel it. But if I say "all of humanity could die" (which include your daughter and your fiancee), you suffer from scale insensitivity and don't care nearly as much even if it's a much more terrible fate (all the things about which humans care about would be gone).

vl 16y ago

While I understand your point, I think that most people don't know what "existential risk prevention" is. And quite frankly, websites you linked to (except sens.org) convey impression of overly-paranoid semi-crazy science fiction, which is unlikely to win funding over puppies.

khafra 16y ago
That's part of the point--people irrationally care more about the marginal puppy than the marginal degree of killer asteroid/supervolcano/nuclear war prevention. If you're one of the few people who care about making a small contribution toward preventing nuclear war than a large contribution toward saving a single puppy, the websites look much saner.
- ahoyhere 16y ago
  I'm late to the party, but rationally speaking... Chance that a bunch of nice, sane, ordinary people can save the lives of lots of cute animals (or hell, humans)? Very good. Chance that a bunch of crazy people with their crazy web site can stop aging, or better yet, stop an asteroid? Slim to none.
  - khafra 16y ago
    In order to speak rationally about it, you would have to give the likelihood ratio you believe they could reduce the sum of existential threats by, however low that is; then multiply that by the utility you would receive from saving human civilization. Compare this to the utility you receive from saving a puppy, multiplied by the probability of saving that puppy. Compare the two numbers. Rationality means thinking quantitatively where applicable, not qualitatively.
MikeCapone 16y ago
For those who want to learn more: http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk

bad_user 16y ago

> finding cures to the diseases of aging I'll be also be old and sick someday, and I think that accepting the fact that you're going to die eventually will make you happier. I also have a cynical view on ... increasing the life span of people can only be harmful to anybody. > Or is this just the way our cognitive biases steer us, pulling at our heart strings against our best interest? Again, what makes you so sure it's in our best interest?

MikeCapone 16y ago
> I'll be also be old and sick someday, and I think that accepting the fact that you're going to die eventually will make you happier. > I also have a cynical view on ... increasing the life span of people can only be harmful to anybody. This reaction is totally rational as long as you believe that aging is both bad and inevitable. It's called the pro-aging trance. If we were hit by a baseball bat on the head every week and there was nothing we could do, over time we would also rationalize why it's good. But if you were to ask someone who had never been hit on the head if he wanted too, he would say no. In the same way, if you asked someone who biologically stayed with the body of a 25 years old if he wanted to get frail, he would say no. As soon as someone proves that the diseases of aging aren't inevitable (say, by making a mouse live in good health for 10x the normal lifespan), the pro-aging transe will be broken. Listen to the part about the pro-aging transe here: http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_ag... Your body is already repairing most of the damage of aging and replacing most of your cells over time. It's just that there are certain kinds of damage that we haven't evolved to repair, and over time they add up. Past certain thresholds they cause pathologies, and we get frail, suffer and die. But if we can periodically repair that damage (without the need to understand all of metabolism, just the damage), we can avoid ever getting close to these thresholds. > Again, what makes you so sure it's in our best interest? Not being killed by an asteroid or a supervolcano is pretty obviously in our best interest, as well as not dying from cancer or alzheimers. If I put a gun to your daughter's or your fiancee's head, you'd feel it. But if I say "all of humanity could die" (which include your daughter and your fiancee), you suffer from scale insensitivity and don't care nearly as much even if it's a much more terrible fate (all the things about which humans care about would be gone).