I think the principle I want us to abide by is something like ‘if something is an argument for caring more about entities who are widely regarded as not worthy of such care, then even if the argument sounds pretty absurd, I am supportive of some people doing research into it. And if they’re doing that research with the intent of increasing everyone’s well-being and flourishing as much as possible, then they’re part of our movement’.
That's just beautiful. Thanks for your insight!
It's not clear to me what it would mean to "treasure a non-living thing" in the same way that we should "treasure a living [I'd add 'sentient'] being". When I treasure a sentient being, what I mean by this is that:
(1) I recognize that sentient being's capacity to feel positive and negative states of mind;
(2) I recognize that that sentient being has interests of their own; and
(3) I take the previous two facts into consideration in my decision-making so that I don't, unnecessarily, make that sentient being feel negative states of mind, or deprive them of their interests.
However, in the case of non-living things, such as rocks, knives, toys, etc, facts (1) and (2) are absent, and therefore I cannot treasure them in the same way I treasure sentient beings.
I can, of course, decide that some non-living thing has value (such as a potato), in so far as it can, for instance, satisfy the interest of a sentient being not to be hungry, and make that sentient being not experience the negative state of mind associated with hunger, but rather experience the positive state of mind associated with satiation, and the ripple effects of nutrition that flow from this.
In your example of reducing waste, who (or what), exactly, is being treasured? The waste, or the future sentient beings who, because of an environmentally friendly disposal of the waste, will have their interests satisfied by not living in a depleted Earth?
The Moral Imperative toward Cost-Effectiveness in Global Health - Centre for Global Development (20 mins.)
Hi! This link is broken. Could someone update it? Here's the new one: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/2X9rBEBwxBwxAo9Sd/the-moral-imperative-towards-cost-effectiveness
Thank you very much for such well-written introduction to your project. May all sentient beings be directly or indirectly benefited! :-)
Wow! Really? I haven't read that referred article, and my knowledge of Economics is almost zero. Since Max's claim here as I understand it (that in order to end poverty, a global redistribution of wealth is not sufficient) is very bold and has practical consequences, I'd like to ask if someone could evaluate gajosfajos' argument. Is Max Roser really making that unwarranted conclusion?
Thanks for this important comment! I also agree that it would make the text clearer if we added the fact that we're dealing with the logarithm of the GDP.
Your observations seem very to the point. Could you elaborate a little bit on what you mean by "implying power dependence on GDP"?
Does it make sense for me to point out the typos here so that they can be fixed? I believe such important texts convey their message better when written without typos. Let me know if there is a better place for me to point them out.
#1: "compare the values any two health benefits".
#2: "which given rise to a number of subtly different versions"
#3: "is estimated to be 1,400 times as cost-effectiveness as the least good"
#4: "per year before eradication.8"
#5: "costeffectiveness" and "costeffective" appear around 5 times in the text in total
Thank you for taking your precious time to organize this handbook and make other effective altruists' lives easier! May all sentient beings be directly or indirectly benefited!
I find Where The Hell is Matt? 2008 to be the most beautiful video I've ever seen. For years straight it always brings joyful tears of love and compassion to my eyes. The mesmerizing song and the shots of people from all around the world dancing without any bigger purpose but to celebrate life itself remind me of the immense value that happiness has.
Just trying to get myself comfortable with posting on the forum, since I'm new to it.
I'm from Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul), I consider myself deeply concerned about ethics, and I believe there are analytical methods that can get us closer not only to ethical truths (be they objective or not) but also to the methods whereby we may abide by those truths.
I have a medical degree and I'm currently taking an online MicroMasters in Statistics and Data Science at MITx. I plan to take part in public health research, though I'm pretty much open to change gears if presented with sufficient evidence to do so.
Thank you all for supporting the EA community!