Thank you for the post! Can’t belive I only saw it now.
I do agree that altruism can and should be seen as something that’s net positive to once own happiness for most. But: 1. My post was mainly intended for people who are already “hardcore” EAs and are willing to make a significant personal sacrifice for the greater good. 2. You make some interesting comparisons to religion that I somewhat agree with. Though I don’t think religion is as time consuming as EA is for many EAs. I’m also sure EA would seem less like a personal sacrifice if you were surrounded by EAs. 3. Trying to make EA more mainstream is not simple. Many ideas seems ratical to the average person. You could ofc try to make the ideas seem more in line with the average viewpoint. But I don’t think that’s worth it if it makes us less efficient.
I honestly believe this should be the real, priority long-term question: how to generate a non-political social movement that motivates altruistic action.
I would love for the EA movement, as it exists today, to be able to achieve the ambitious goals of increasing the number of signatories of the GWWC Pledge to “millions”… but I have my doubts that this will be the case, and is it fair to the people who are suffering and require altruistic action to simply wait and see, and not try anything to accelerate the process of increasing altruistic action?
In my view, the first step would be to generate a discussion group on this issue (how can we motivate more people to be active altruists?). I imagine an inevitable conclusion would be, above all, to try to generate a social support movement for donors and those who are hesitant about whether or not to be one.
I’m also sure EA would seem less like a personal sacrifice if you were surrounded by EAs.
The “Alcoholics Anonymous” model (“mutual aid”) is the most obvious: individualized support and the creation of small groups (“cells”) at the local level. It’s absurd not to consider the psychological implications of making such a significant change in your lifestyle from what’s conventional.
All of this is independent of the speculation—which I find logical—about the possibility of organizing a “behavioral ideology” (so we don’t call it “religion”) that offers individuals the option of developing a behavioral style based on benevolence, aggression control, altruistic idealism, and mutual affection, all within the framework of enlightened rationality, which, to certain temperaments at least, might be attractive as a source of “personal happiness” (let’s not forget that there are many ways to “be happy”). There are historical precedents for such social movements being viable (why they failed is a topic that deserves deep reflection).
Thank you very much, Jens, for sharing your point of view, which I find extremely valuable.
Thank you for the post! Can’t belive I only saw it now.
I do agree that altruism can and should be seen as something that’s net positive to once own happiness for most. But:
1. My post was mainly intended for people who are already “hardcore” EAs and are willing to make a significant personal sacrifice for the greater good.
2. You make some interesting comparisons to religion that I somewhat agree with. Though I don’t think religion is as time consuming as EA is for many EAs. I’m also sure EA would seem less like a personal sacrifice if you were surrounded by EAs.
3. Trying to make EA more mainstream is not simple. Many ideas seems ratical to the average person. You could ofc try to make the ideas seem more in line with the average viewpoint. But I don’t think that’s worth it if it makes us less efficient.
Recently, another forum post—at least—addresses the issue of increasing motivation for altruistic action.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/gWyvAQztk75xQvRxD/taking-ethics-seriously-and-enjoying-the-process
This post referred too to a very enjoyable book about altruistic action, published ten years ago, which I think we should all read.
I honestly believe this should be the real, priority long-term question: how to generate a non-political social movement that motivates altruistic action.
I would love for the EA movement, as it exists today, to be able to achieve the ambitious goals of increasing the number of signatories of the GWWC Pledge to “millions”… but I have my doubts that this will be the case, and is it fair to the people who are suffering and require altruistic action to simply wait and see, and not try anything to accelerate the process of increasing altruistic action?
In my view, the first step would be to generate a discussion group on this issue (how can we motivate more people to be active altruists?). I imagine an inevitable conclusion would be, above all, to try to generate a social support movement for donors and those who are hesitant about whether or not to be one.
The “Alcoholics Anonymous” model (“mutual aid”) is the most obvious: individualized support and the creation of small groups (“cells”) at the local level. It’s absurd not to consider the psychological implications of making such a significant change in your lifestyle from what’s conventional.
All of this is independent of the speculation—which I find logical—about the possibility of organizing a “behavioral ideology” (so we don’t call it “religion”) that offers individuals the option of developing a behavioral style based on benevolence, aggression control, altruistic idealism, and mutual affection, all within the framework of enlightened rationality, which, to certain temperaments at least, might be attractive as a source of “personal happiness” (let’s not forget that there are many ways to “be happy”). There are historical precedents for such social movements being viable (why they failed is a topic that deserves deep reflection).
Thank you very much, Jens, for sharing your point of view, which I find extremely valuable.