I’d be hesitant to generalize from normal people’s motivations for giving to those of optimal philanthropists.
Do you think advocating optimal philanthropy is likely to yield greater returns than more direct ways to reduce existential risk? I could see it going either way, and it’s hard to figure out what calculations to do to find out.
To give you something to argue against, consider the position that “saving the world” spreads because it acts as a superstimulus to do-gooders. There’s no credible evidence that aiming at saving the world has any effect on the probability of the world ending. By contrast, “the end is nigh” plackard syndrome is well known—and it diverts resources from other potentially-useful tasks.
X-risk reduction didn’t really act as a superstimulus to me (I had to convince myself). To accept that x-risk reduction is a massive opportunity, I also needed to accept both that x-risk was a massive problem and that I was going to hold a non-mainstream worldview for the foreseeable future. So, there was more bad stuff to think about on this issue than good stuff—it was more ugh field than superstimulus.
Superstimulii do not have to be positive. Traditional religions spread by invoking eternal damnation. The End of Days groups spread their message by invoking eternal oblivion.
As for holding non-mainstream views, that too is typical cult phenomenon. Weird beliefs act as markers of group membership. They show which tribe you belong to, so the ingroup can identify you. Normally the more crazy and weird the beliefs, the harder the signal is to convincingly fake.
Without meaning to doubt your powers of introspection, people don’t necessarily have to be aware of being influenced by superstimulii. Sometimes, if the stimulus becomes conscious, the effect is reduced. So. for example lipstick can be overdone, and often works best of a subliminal level. In the case of The End of Days groups, the superstimulus is pretty obvious, but the effect of on any particular individual it may not be.
Anyway, you can look to the left and see large positive utility, to the right and see large negative utility—but then you have to draw your own conclusions about why you are seeing those things.
Good picture. Together, we can punch the sun!
I’d be hesitant to generalize from normal people’s motivations for giving to those of optimal philanthropists.
Do you think advocating optimal philanthropy is likely to yield greater returns than more direct ways to reduce existential risk? I could see it going either way, and it’s hard to figure out what calculations to do to find out.
I decided to adopt “Together, we can punch the sun!” as a personal motto even before I scrolled back up and saw the relevant photo.
Now I just need to decide what it’s a motto for.
It probably has something to do with that unpublished Gurren Lagaan crossover fic. ;)
I am also co-authoring a journal article and a popular pamphlet which make the case for x-risk reduction as the most optimal philanthropic venture. :)
Three cheers for sun-punching.
To give you something to argue against, consider the position that “saving the world” spreads because it acts as a superstimulus to do-gooders. There’s no credible evidence that aiming at saving the world has any effect on the probability of the world ending. By contrast, “the end is nigh” plackard syndrome is well known—and it diverts resources from other potentially-useful tasks.
X-risk reduction didn’t really act as a superstimulus to me (I had to convince myself). To accept that x-risk reduction is a massive opportunity, I also needed to accept both that x-risk was a massive problem and that I was going to hold a non-mainstream worldview for the foreseeable future. So, there was more bad stuff to think about on this issue than good stuff—it was more ugh field than superstimulus.
That’s just me though; n=1.
Superstimulii do not have to be positive. Traditional religions spread by invoking eternal damnation. The End of Days groups spread their message by invoking eternal oblivion.
As for holding non-mainstream views, that too is typical cult phenomenon. Weird beliefs act as markers of group membership. They show which tribe you belong to, so the ingroup can identify you. Normally the more crazy and weird the beliefs, the harder the signal is to convincingly fake.
Without meaning to doubt your powers of introspection, people don’t necessarily have to be aware of being influenced by superstimulii. Sometimes, if the stimulus becomes conscious, the effect is reduced. So. for example lipstick can be overdone, and often works best of a subliminal level. In the case of The End of Days groups, the superstimulus is pretty obvious, but the effect of on any particular individual it may not be.
Anyway, you can look to the left and see large positive utility, to the right and see large negative utility—but then you have to draw your own conclusions about why you are seeing those things.
An economist might say that when you punch something, you get less of it. I want more giant sources of negative entropy for my use :(