Great post! Definitely agree with not obsessing on expected values. Especially with dubious claims of extreme "suffering" which may mostly just be nociception.
However, to counter argue, when faced with the choice of helping two individuals suffering from extreme suffering versus one, isn’t it "better" to assist two individuals rather than one?
Thanks, Aditya! I hope this means you are on #TeamElectron ;-)
The answer isn't "no," but also, the answer isn't as "objectively true" as most people think. (That's the point of "Chicken Worlds" in Losing, p. 386 https://www.losingmyreligions.net/ although it makes more sense in the context of those two chapters.)
Ok re-read that chapter. I agree with you that "the universe" doesn't suffer only individuals do. And maybe I am also wrong about more suffering alleviation is "better" than less.
But someone made me realise that what matters isn't just being right instead being strategic about what works! ;)
I think rallying behind the average persons intuition here is potentially more tractable. Of course we need to avoid going into weird rabbit holes (focusing on happy future robots, AGI overlords, insect suffering, etc.)
"Chicken Worlds" was written for the not average person who has gone from caring about factory farmed animals to wild bugs or future robots or promoting Xtianity. And who then go on to spend their life arguing that only they know the objective truth. (I've seen this happen more than you know.)
Great post! Definitely agree with not obsessing on expected values. Especially with dubious claims of extreme "suffering" which may mostly just be nociception.
However, to counter argue, when faced with the choice of helping two individuals suffering from extreme suffering versus one, isn’t it "better" to assist two individuals rather than one?
Thanks, Aditya! I hope this means you are on #TeamElectron ;-)
The answer isn't "no," but also, the answer isn't as "objectively true" as most people think. (That's the point of "Chicken Worlds" in Losing, p. 386 https://www.losingmyreligions.net/ although it makes more sense in the context of those two chapters.)
Ok re-read that chapter. I agree with you that "the universe" doesn't suffer only individuals do. And maybe I am also wrong about more suffering alleviation is "better" than less.
But someone made me realise that what matters isn't just being right instead being strategic about what works! ;)
I think rallying behind the average persons intuition here is potentially more tractable. Of course we need to avoid going into weird rabbit holes (focusing on happy future robots, AGI overlords, insect suffering, etc.)
Agree!
"Chicken Worlds" was written for the not average person who has gone from caring about factory farmed animals to wild bugs or future robots or promoting Xtianity. And who then go on to spend their life arguing that only they know the objective truth. (I've seen this happen more than you know.)