I recalled that I recently read an article in Wired about this, which was a bit critical of some aspects.
I personally might dispute some of the criticisms raised by this writer, because (1) even though actions might have unintended consequences, doing nothing or little are also bound to have unintended consequences, and we simply must intelligently research and make our choices' on which actions/no actions to take, (2) the costs of doing nothing ... and failing to think outside the box ... are too high and too risky given the existential threats we face that do require such innovative actions and creative thinking; and (3) "longtermism" should not be confused with thinking about the near future and trying to consider solutions for world problems which may require research and investment today (My book advocates such research on technologies which may come online in the very near future to treat a variety of problems ranging from violence in anger, to apathy in the face of strangers' poverty, to moderation of our inner drives toward excess consumption and addiction, all of which are in harmony with Buddhist ethical values.)
However, what do you think?
Gassho, J
stlah
I personally might dispute some of the criticisms raised by this writer, because (1) even though actions might have unintended consequences, doing nothing or little are also bound to have unintended consequences, and we simply must intelligently research and make our choices' on which actions/no actions to take, (2) the costs of doing nothing ... and failing to think outside the box ... are too high and too risky given the existential threats we face that do require such innovative actions and creative thinking; and (3) "longtermism" should not be confused with thinking about the near future and trying to consider solutions for world problems which may require research and investment today (My book advocates such research on technologies which may come online in the very near future to treat a variety of problems ranging from violence in anger, to apathy in the face of strangers' poverty, to moderation of our inner drives toward excess consumption and addiction, all of which are in harmony with Buddhist ethical values.)
However, what do you think?
Gassho, J
stlah
This was a fun read. The author is biased indeed, but outlines the criticisms against EA pretty well. It’s worth pointing out that EA doesn’t just sit on its high horse and rest on its laurels but does take criticism in stride in order to increase their “effectiveness.” The issue lies in their over reliance on quantification and statistics — the article alludes to the utilitarian metrics Ord used to calculate how many lives he has saved. They take no qualms about putting a(n economic) value on a life and to me that’s just absurd. But this same philosophizing has led to them advocating for animals and seeking to put an end to factory farming. I think you hit the nail on the head when you were able to extract some of the positives in EA’s logic.
There’s a lot of good intermixed with a lot of not-so-good. My suggestion to anyone reading this and considering EA is to not be outright dismissive of their project(s), while also taking their suggestions with a grain of salt. This is a situation in which perhaps we can find a middle ground by still using compassion and what we think is right, while also recognizing that there may be ways to do good… more effectively.
for positive poetry 優婆塞 台 婆
Comment