The amount of money one donates, for instance, and where to, is probably more important in terms of suffering prevented than the effects of personal consumption.
That’s a testable assertion. How confident are you that you would follow the path of self consistency if upon being tested the assertion turned out to be false? Someone who chooses pragmatism only needs to fight their own ignorance to be self consistent while someone who does not has to fight both their own ignorance and all too often their own pragmatism in order to be slf-consistent.
Yes, it’s testable and the estimates so far strongly support my claim. (I’m constantly on the lookout for data of this kind to improve my effectiveness.) I wouldn’t have trouble adjusting because I’m already trying to reduce my unethical consumption through habit forming (which basically comes down to being vegan and avoiding expensive stuff). Even if its not very effective compared to other things, as long as I don’t have opportunity costs, it is still something positive. I’m just saying that even for people who won’t, for whatever reasons, make changes to the kind of stuff they buy, these people could still reduce a lot of suffering by donating to the most effective cause.
I wonder if pragmatists are less likely to reject information they don’t want to hear since their self interest is their terminal goal, so for example entertaining the possibility that Malthus can be right in some instances does not imply that they must unilaterally sacrifice themselves.
Perhaps the reason so many transhumanists are peak oil deniers and global warming deniers is that both of these are Malthusian scenarios that would put the immediate needs of those less fortunate in direct and obvious opposition to the costly, delayed-payoff projects we advocate.
That’s a testable assertion. How confident are you that you would follow the path of self consistency if upon being tested the assertion turned out to be false? Someone who chooses pragmatism only needs to fight their own ignorance to be self consistent while someone who does not has to fight both their own ignorance and all too often their own pragmatism in order to be slf-consistent.
Yes, it’s testable and the estimates so far strongly support my claim. (I’m constantly on the lookout for data of this kind to improve my effectiveness.) I wouldn’t have trouble adjusting because I’m already trying to reduce my unethical consumption through habit forming (which basically comes down to being vegan and avoiding expensive stuff). Even if its not very effective compared to other things, as long as I don’t have opportunity costs, it is still something positive. I’m just saying that even for people who won’t, for whatever reasons, make changes to the kind of stuff they buy, these people could still reduce a lot of suffering by donating to the most effective cause.
I wonder if pragmatists are less likely to reject information they don’t want to hear since their self interest is their terminal goal, so for example entertaining the possibility that Malthus can be right in some instances does not imply that they must unilaterally sacrifice themselves.
Perhaps the reason so many transhumanists are peak oil deniers and global warming deniers is that both of these are Malthusian scenarios that would put the immediate needs of those less fortunate in direct and obvious opposition to the costly, delayed-payoff projects we advocate.