The main thing I see is that the purpose remains extremely under-defined, and there won’t be very much interest until you have something more specific than “making the world a better place”. We already discussed the distinction between conventional causes and transhumanist causes, but then there are so many other considerations.
Consider the problems faced by a suicidal teenager, a stressed sales manager, or a schizophrenic living on the street. Their problems are not cleanly solvable problems - ‘do this differently, and we’re done’; they would involve a complex tangle of personality traits and external circumstances. And yet problems of that sort are far more typical of what people complain about. People generally don’t complain about universal conditions like “everybody has to die” or “everybody has to work”; it’s more like, my child is failing in school, I’m gaining weight, and I don’t know how I will make next month’s mortgage payment, and it’s all so unfair because I’m being a good person and trying to do something for the planet by saving to buy solar panels.
The fabric of human suffering, if I can call it that, consists mostly of chronic annoyances, frustrations, and disappointments possessing this highly particular and personal character, punctuated by harsher events, whose frequency in space and time is sharply peaked around wars and natural disasters.
Returning to what you want to know: who supports your future organization will be decided by the specific answer you give to the question, what exactly are we trying to do? Most people already have some idea of what causes they want to support. A few people might be interested in reconsidering from first principles which causes they should support. But no-one is going to commit to anything on the basis of what you’ve written so far, because the one thing that the world is not short of, is organizations asking for our moral, financial, and practical support. So we’re all waiting for further details.
who supports your future organization will be decided by the specific answer you give to the question, what exactly are we trying to do?
One of the points I intend to make is that this actually matters much, much less than people think. If you want to make a change in the world and be effective about it, you will share a lot of medium-term goals with other people who have similar ambitions, even if your desired end goals are different. Medium-term goals such as raising the sanity waterline, researching techniques for personal effectiveness, and so on.
I realise I haven’t actually made this point yet—it’ll be a future post. But it’s a point I need to get across sooner rather than later, so thank you for bringing it to my attention.
The main thing I see is that the purpose remains extremely under-defined, and there won’t be very much interest until you have something more specific than “making the world a better place”. We already discussed the distinction between conventional causes and transhumanist causes, but then there are so many other considerations.
Consider the problems faced by a suicidal teenager, a stressed sales manager, or a schizophrenic living on the street. Their problems are not cleanly solvable problems - ‘do this differently, and we’re done’; they would involve a complex tangle of personality traits and external circumstances. And yet problems of that sort are far more typical of what people complain about. People generally don’t complain about universal conditions like “everybody has to die” or “everybody has to work”; it’s more like, my child is failing in school, I’m gaining weight, and I don’t know how I will make next month’s mortgage payment, and it’s all so unfair because I’m being a good person and trying to do something for the planet by saving to buy solar panels.
The fabric of human suffering, if I can call it that, consists mostly of chronic annoyances, frustrations, and disappointments possessing this highly particular and personal character, punctuated by harsher events, whose frequency in space and time is sharply peaked around wars and natural disasters.
Returning to what you want to know: who supports your future organization will be decided by the specific answer you give to the question, what exactly are we trying to do? Most people already have some idea of what causes they want to support. A few people might be interested in reconsidering from first principles which causes they should support. But no-one is going to commit to anything on the basis of what you’ve written so far, because the one thing that the world is not short of, is organizations asking for our moral, financial, and practical support. So we’re all waiting for further details.
One of the points I intend to make is that this actually matters much, much less than people think. If you want to make a change in the world and be effective about it, you will share a lot of medium-term goals with other people who have similar ambitions, even if your desired end goals are different. Medium-term goals such as raising the sanity waterline, researching techniques for personal effectiveness, and so on.
I realise I haven’t actually made this point yet—it’ll be a future post. But it’s a point I need to get across sooner rather than later, so thank you for bringing it to my attention.