I like this part too. I think that the way we convey facts and the story makes all the difference at how we will feel and how likely we are to do anything about the issue at hand.
I might be saying something very controversial here but I wonder how do we know what a “cruel world is”?, or a “normal world”?, or a “fair world is”? I don’t disagree with the argument about saving as many children as possible (I have 2 myself). I honestly wonder where is the line between the natural balance of species—that allows all species to have enough space and resources on our planet to live (and not only our human species) - and unfairness/cruel and efforts that we should put in.
I don’t have the answer, but it has been on my mind as well. Our planet has a limited caring capacity and natural resources. We all need nature and other species to survive. Therefore at some point, if we all strive to increase our life span and resources, we will have another issue of massive starvation/water shortage/natural resources/space shortage ect.
I know it’s not a popular argument but in the spirit of the effective altruism principles I would be interested to hear different views on how to balance these two aspects: of saving as many lives as possible and our finite earth carrying capacity.
Having said that, this question really clashes with my own values and my deep want to live in a world that have equal rights and quality of life throughout the world.
I like this part too. I think that the way we convey facts and the story makes all the difference at how we will feel and how likely we are to do anything about the issue at hand.
I might be saying something very controversial here but I wonder how do we know what a “cruel world is”?, or a “normal world”?, or a “fair world is”? I don’t disagree with the argument about saving as many children as possible (I have 2 myself). I honestly wonder where is the line between the natural balance of species—that allows all species to have enough space and resources on our planet to live (and not only our human species) - and unfairness/cruel and efforts that we should put in.
I don’t have the answer, but it has been on my mind as well. Our planet has a limited caring capacity and natural resources. We all need nature and other species to survive. Therefore at some point, if we all strive to increase our life span and resources, we will have another issue of massive starvation/water shortage/natural resources/space shortage ect.
I know it’s not a popular argument but in the spirit of the effective altruism principles I would be interested to hear different views on how to balance these two aspects: of saving as many lives as possible and our finite earth carrying capacity.
Having said that, this question really clashes with my own values and my deep want to live in a world that have equal rights and quality of life throughout the world.
Thank you.