It seems to be ok to be trying to save the world if, as Nate contends, if it takes the one in a million to save the World, there better be a million people trying.
I agree with the commenters who mentioned that we live in a high leverage time (though I think donating to MIRI should not be the main example of future expected returns, since other people may do equivalent research on a third of the MIRI employee cost).
A similar argument can be made for money making and anti-aging for some people. I read a lot of the papers on happiness and money, and I have no doubt I can continue to have a very happy life on a small salary for american standards. But if you put “not dying” into play, it seems worthwhile to actually maximize, or near maximize money and resources, to make sure I have enough resources to not die when anti-aging becomes fungible with money. It feels like an all or nothing.
It seems to be ok to be trying to save the world if, as Nate contends, if it takes the one in a million to save the World, there better be a million people trying.
I agree with the commenters who mentioned that we live in a high leverage time (though I think donating to MIRI should not be the main example of future expected returns, since other people may do equivalent research on a third of the MIRI employee cost).
A similar argument can be made for money making and anti-aging for some people. I read a lot of the papers on happiness and money, and I have no doubt I can continue to have a very happy life on a small salary for american standards. But if you put “not dying” into play, it seems worthwhile to actually maximize, or near maximize money and resources, to make sure I have enough resources to not die when anti-aging becomes fungible with money. It feels like an all or nothing.
Also, related to the original post: http://lesswrong.com/lw/fsg/absent_transhumanism_and_transformative/