Comment author: concerned_ 03 October 2017 04:44:51AM *  0 points [-]

I'd like to see finer-grained details on ethical views (e.g., population ethics).

In response to comment by gworley3  (EA Profile) on S-risk FAQ
Comment author: Brian_Tomasik 19 September 2017 12:11:11AM 3 points [-]

the sort of thing we were pointing at in the late 90s before we started talking about x-risk

I'd be interested to hear more about that if you want to take the time.

In response to comment by Brian_Tomasik on S-risk FAQ
Comment author: concerned_ 19 September 2017 02:07:40AM *  3 points [-]

Here is s-risk discussion from 2003: http://sl4.org/wiki/HyperExistentialRisk

You might be able to find more discussion by searching for "suffering" or other relative terms using <site:sl4.org>. You can also search the extropians archive <site:diyhpl.us/~bryan/irc/extropians/>, but it doesn't seem to be fully indexed.

Comment author: concerned_ 18 September 2017 09:14:52PM 4 points [-]

I'd be curious to see how "year joined" correlates with cause area preference.

Comment author: nonzerosum 14 September 2017 10:12:05PM 0 points [-]

I don't think it's appropriate to include donations to ACE or GiveWell as 'cause prioritization.' I think ACE should be classed as animal welfare and GiveWell as global poverty.

My understanding is that cause prioritization is broad comparison research.

Cause prioritization looks at broad causes (e.g. migration, global warming, global health, life extension) in order to compare them, instead of examining individual charities within each cause (as has been traditional).

https://causeprioritization.org/Cause%20prioritization

Comment author: concerned_ 14 September 2017 11:05:03PM 1 point [-]

Under this definition, are there even any EA orgs that do cause prioritization work?

Comment author: Larks 07 September 2017 02:08:17AM 1 point [-]

Thinking of books that had a big impact on me, and that I think I would endorse:

  • Godel Escher Bach, Douglas Hofstadter
  • The Sequences, Eliezer Yudkowsky
  • Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand
  • The Extended Phenotype, Richard Dawkins
  • Diaspora, Greg Egan

I also think the Culture novels, and the 80,000 Hours book, could be good.

Comment author: concerned_ 12 September 2017 04:39:51PM 2 points [-]

Isn't Ayn Rand the antithesis of EA?

Comment author: Joey 31 August 2017 12:31:03AM 3 points [-]
Comment author: concerned_ 31 August 2017 03:01:57AM *  3 points [-]

Does anyone know why it peaked in March? Maybe because of the anti-Singer protest?

Comment author: aaronhamlin 09 August 2017 06:41:24PM 0 points [-]

Given that these all seem to connect with aging issues, I wonder how open the EA community would be to tackling aging as an illness. The foundation that focuses on this is the SENS Foundation (http://www.sens.org/). Aubrey deGrey is the leading figure behind this focus (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvWtSUdOWVI).

Comment author: concerned_ 09 August 2017 10:24:15PM 0 points [-]

I'm open to it, but I'm not convinced SENS is actually effective.

Comment author: concerned_ 28 June 2017 06:17:13PM 0 points [-]

What probability would you assign to a China brain being conscious?

Comment author: Austen_Forrester 15 March 2017 02:17:01AM 2 points [-]

It's the only negative utilitarianism promoting group I know of. Does anyone know of others (affiliated with EA or not)?

Comment author: concerned_ 16 March 2017 11:37:18PM 1 point [-]

Another pro-NU org: http://preventsuffering.org/

Comment author: inconvenient 15 March 2017 07:13:29AM *  3 points [-]

I really don't like how you are accusing people without evidence of intentionally promoting violence. This is borderline libel. I agree that someone could take their ideology and use it to justify violence, but I see no reason to believe that they are intentionally trying to "entice" such actions.

Indeed, must focus on the battles we can win. There are two traps. One is to make false accusations. Currently, few negative utilitarians are promoting terrorism, and we should not make accusations that would suggest otherwise. Two is to stir up controversy. Telling negative utilitarians that they are terrorists could inflame them into actually behaving in a more hostile manner. It is like when people say that naming "radical islamic terrorism" is necessary to solve the problem. Perhaps, but it would be more useful to engage cooperatively with the religion of Islam to show that it is a religion of piece, and the same for utilitraianism.

The safe position that we should expect EA leaders to vigilantly oppose is not to promote values whose adoption would lead to large-scale terrorism. This is the hill that we should choose to die on. Specifically, if negative utilitarians believe in cooperation, and they believe that value-spreading is important, then they should be cooperative in the values that they spread. And this does not allow for spreading values that would lead to actions that are overwhelmingly repulsive to the vast majority of ethicists andd the general population on an astronomical scale. EA leaders must include CEA.

Comment author: concerned_ 15 March 2017 05:14:41PM 0 points [-]

I agree 100%.

View more: Next