This seems to miss the point rather dramatically. Assume that there is suffering in the world that we can measure at -$200 trillion. We’ll just assume that’s the cost of alleviating that suffering. Pretty much no matter who you are, you can’t alleviate more than a few million dollars of that suffering. Even if you’re a complete outlier, like Bill Gates, you might be able to reduce world suffering by .1%.
If you feel bad in proportion to the amount of suffering in the world, given the inability of human feeling to make extremely nuanced distinctions (e.g. how much worse would it actually feel to lose $283.27 versus $283.07?), if you attempt to feel suffering in proportion to the amount that exists in the world, there actually isn’t much of a point in combating suffering. It’d feel rather like dedicating your whole life to dropping a tablespoon of water into a swimming pool.
Strong emotions are also often conducive to irrational behaviour (and things such as depression).
Also, everyone has a utility function that is heavily self-centered. Exceptions may exist, but it is an extreme minority of people who sincerely act as if they do not count for substantially more than other individuals in their utility function. I’d argue this is a good thing, but that aside, it is reality. Given that, not feeling miserable throughout life is a rather important end. This is even more true if you cannot demonstrate a clear connection between feeling miserable about the world in general and striving to make the world a better place. I have to admit I do not know many people I would describe as successful activists for any cause who are also genuinely unhappy in life. General unhappiness seems to be a major inhibitor of success in any of one’s pursuits.
See note on ambiguity at the end of my second post.
Also, one ambiguity that may be creating misunderstanding on both our parts: Ideally, no one should be generally unhappy, no matter what state the world is in. What they should be is unhappy about things, so that they can work harder to solve them—and they should be unhappy about things in proportion to how bad they are.
Ideally, no one should be generally unhappy, no matter what state the world is in. What they should be is unhappy about things, so that they can work harder to solve them.
This is great—if you can, this insight should be turned into another top-level post.
This seems to miss the point rather dramatically. Assume that there is suffering in the world that we can measure at -$200 trillion. We’ll just assume that’s the cost of alleviating that suffering. Pretty much no matter who you are, you can’t alleviate more than a few million dollars of that suffering. Even if you’re a complete outlier, like Bill Gates, you might be able to reduce world suffering by .1%.
If you feel bad in proportion to the amount of suffering in the world, given the inability of human feeling to make extremely nuanced distinctions (e.g. how much worse would it actually feel to lose $283.27 versus $283.07?), if you attempt to feel suffering in proportion to the amount that exists in the world, there actually isn’t much of a point in combating suffering. It’d feel rather like dedicating your whole life to dropping a tablespoon of water into a swimming pool.
Strong emotions are also often conducive to irrational behaviour (and things such as depression).
Also, everyone has a utility function that is heavily self-centered. Exceptions may exist, but it is an extreme minority of people who sincerely act as if they do not count for substantially more than other individuals in their utility function. I’d argue this is a good thing, but that aside, it is reality. Given that, not feeling miserable throughout life is a rather important end. This is even more true if you cannot demonstrate a clear connection between feeling miserable about the world in general and striving to make the world a better place. I have to admit I do not know many people I would describe as successful activists for any cause who are also genuinely unhappy in life. General unhappiness seems to be a major inhibitor of success in any of one’s pursuits.
See note on ambiguity at the end of my second post.
This is great—if you can, this insight should be turned into another top-level post.