5 ms·
>Firstly, you can't predict the future so really you're working off your biases. Um, are you saying that this implies that people should just throw up their ha
by yanderekko 4y ago
>Firstly, you can't predict the future so really you're working off your biases.
Um, are you saying that this implies that people should just throw up their hands and donate to whatever causes since who knows? Surely not. Once we acknowledge that these questions can be tackled empirically, that's what EA tries to do. Is there room for bias in this process? Absolutely. Does that justify embracing some sort of epistemic nihilism? Absolutely not.
- davidgay 4y ago> > Firstly, you can't predict the future so really you're working off your biases. > Um, are you saying that this implies that people should just throw up their hands and donate to whatever causes since who knows? No, it implies that you shouldn't lecture others that you have the one true answer as to the best path forwards. You are free to (and in fact should) use your best judgment in your own personal choices, just don't confuse that with absolute truth.
- yanderekko 4y agoI don't think EA institutions argue that they have the One True Answer. They just often give recommendations - "eg. if you care about maximizing QALY overall, we recommend charities X, Y, and Z." If I don't care about QALY maximization, fine. But if I do, why would I not listen to the recommendations?
- TedDoesntTalk 4y agoLongtermism and QALY do not seem compatible.
- xorfish 4y agoEA and Longtermism are not the same thing.
- Chilko 4y agoHowever the linked article makes a pretty strong case that the two are increasingly interlinked, especially in the EA institutions.
- blep_ 4y agoThey do if you legitimately think the long-term thing will kill everyone. I don't think that myself, but it's internally consistent.