3 ms·

Minimizing the net suffering in the world through effective altruism.

jxub 8y ago
Well, the most effective way to do it is just anesthetized annihilation of all humanity. Probably we should flip the mental script and say that this definition of minimisation of suffering has effective altruism as a local minima, and painless and unconscious death as a global minima, because it eliminates all suffering immediately and thus would be the perfect solution. Death is considered almost univocally bad, so perhaps this definition of doing good should also take some type of maximization of subjective happiness into account.
- muzani 8y ago
  Whoa, chill out there, Skynet. I think people actually enjoy purposeful suffering. That's even what many games bring about. A life without suffering is boring. But we don't want unnecessary suffering. Like parasites. Or having to walk 5 km for a barrel of clean water. Suffering in the aid of others, like bringing a barrel of clean water over 5 km for your family, is actuallu very satisfying though. More so than, say, getting 5 customers through a day of telemarketing.
- reducesuffering 8y ago
  It's a good point. The preference is on minimizing suffering rather than increasing the happiness of those who are already well off. I'm curious how you'd put that philosophy into a succinct phrase then.
ethiclub 8y ago
May I ask how you achieve this day to day, and what your big audacious goal is? It is rare to see someone able to make this their direct passion and drive. Related: In my personal experience this is the ultimate macro driver (net positive gains in world emotion - decreasing 'suffering emotion', increasing 'happy emotion') but for micro day to day, it's a huge weight and can be an overwhelming self-burden, so different small scale motivators are needed. Related: I wish that there was a unanimous (or more widely accepted) structure for mapping emotion to as-objective-as-possible values (acknowledging the vast nuance of emotion, hormones-et-al, subjective experience etc.). Or in other words, subjective experience and (practically fractal) complexity of the problem make it difficult to slap figures on externalities to offset them.
- reducesuffering 8y ago
  The big audacious goal is minimizing global suffering. Yes, it can be a weight if you focus too much on "if I don't achieve this, people will be worse off", but you ultimately realize that thinking like this should only be done if it helps you toward the metric. If the burden is heavy, but it helps so many others much more than yourself, it's barely a burden compared to what so many beings go through. I believe a person achieves this day to day by focusing on the goal, and then extrapolating backwards to what is going on each day, each month, that is working towards that goal. I believe a person can contribute by focusing on a couple important categories: 1. Economic: Accumulating wealth gives you tremendous leverage to affect change in a positive way. Informing people of issues and remedies. The ability to improve and affect infrastructure and policies to be more communal and social. Putting dollars behind improving global medicine and technology for good. 2. Inspiration and Information: Assisting grassroots movements to better the world, spreading factual information, creating new science, writing, big ideas, and art. Basically, what has good chances of improving the well being of people and animals without simply economic might. In the end, you'll have moved the needle and can hopefully get many other people to move the needle forwards too. Society is approaching a point where we have the opportunity to finally make all livelihood well off, without the immense pain and destruction that has occurred in the past. It's because of the people in the past who pushed us forward, and the onus is on us today.
  - ethiclub 8y ago
    Interesting reply and view, thank you for the response.

jxub 8y ago

Well, the most effective way to do it is just anesthetized annihilation of all humanity. Probably we should flip the mental script and say that this definition of minimisation of suffering has effective altruism as a local minima, and painless and unconscious death as a global minima, because it eliminates all suffering immediately and thus would be the perfect solution. Death is considered almost univocally bad, so perhaps this definition of doing good should also take some type of maximization of subjective happiness into account.

muzani 8y ago
Whoa, chill out there, Skynet. I think people actually enjoy purposeful suffering. That's even what many games bring about. A life without suffering is boring. But we don't want unnecessary suffering. Like parasites. Or having to walk 5 km for a barrel of clean water. Suffering in the aid of others, like bringing a barrel of clean water over 5 km for your family, is actuallu very satisfying though. More so than, say, getting 5 customers through a day of telemarketing.
reducesuffering 8y ago
It's a good point. The preference is on minimizing suffering rather than increasing the happiness of those who are already well off. I'm curious how you'd put that philosophy into a succinct phrase then.

ethiclub 8y ago

May I ask how you achieve this day to day, and what your big audacious goal is? It is rare to see someone able to make this their direct passion and drive. Related: In my personal experience this is the ultimate macro driver (net positive gains in world emotion - decreasing 'suffering emotion', increasing 'happy emotion') but for micro day to day, it's a huge weight and can be an overwhelming self-burden, so different small scale motivators are needed. Related: I wish that there was a unanimous (or more widely accepted) structure for mapping emotion to as-objective-as-possible values (acknowledging the vast nuance of emotion, hormones-et-al, subjective experience etc.). Or in other words, subjective experience and (practically fractal) complexity of the problem make it difficult to slap figures on externalities to offset them.

reducesuffering 8y ago
The big audacious goal is minimizing global suffering. Yes, it can be a weight if you focus too much on "if I don't achieve this, people will be worse off", but you ultimately realize that thinking like this should only be done if it helps you toward the metric. If the burden is heavy, but it helps so many others much more than yourself, it's barely a burden compared to what so many beings go through. I believe a person achieves this day to day by focusing on the goal, and then extrapolating backwards to what is going on each day, each month, that is working towards that goal. I believe a person can contribute by focusing on a couple important categories: 1. Economic: Accumulating wealth gives you tremendous leverage to affect change in a positive way. Informing people of issues and remedies. The ability to improve and affect infrastructure and policies to be more communal and social. Putting dollars behind improving global medicine and technology for good. 2. Inspiration and Information: Assisting grassroots movements to better the world, spreading factual information, creating new science, writing, big ideas, and art. Basically, what has good chances of improving the well being of people and animals without simply economic might. In the end, you'll have moved the needle and can hopefully get many other people to move the needle forwards too. Society is approaching a point where we have the opportunity to finally make all livelihood well off, without the immense pain and destruction that has occurred in the past. It's because of the people in the past who pushed us forward, and the onus is on us today.
- ethiclub 8y ago
  Interesting reply and view, thank you for the response.