Executive summary: The “Dog vs Cat” thought experiment illustrates how radically uncertain we should be about the very long-term effects of altruistic actions, even for narrow decisions like donating to dog vs cat shelters.
Key points:
A billionaire wants to donate his wealth to either dog or cat shelters worldwide, caring about all long-term consequences, not just direct effects on companion animals.
Even for this narrow decision, the number and complexity of causal ramifications and flow-through effects are overwhelming and impossible to predict.
The donation will inevitably affect attitudes, values, consumption, economic growth, technological development, populations, geopolitical events, etc. in chaotic and unpredictable ways.
The philanthropy advisor should arguably be agnostic about whether the overall consequences will be positive or negative.
This thought experiment may be a compelling illustration of the motivations for “cluelessness” about long-term effects, avoiding some shortcomings of previous examples.
The story makes it clear that the choice matters significantly despite our cluelessness, and the “future remains unchanged” objection does not apply.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, andcontact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: The “Dog vs Cat” thought experiment illustrates how radically uncertain we should be about the very long-term effects of altruistic actions, even for narrow decisions like donating to dog vs cat shelters.
Key points:
A billionaire wants to donate his wealth to either dog or cat shelters worldwide, caring about all long-term consequences, not just direct effects on companion animals.
Even for this narrow decision, the number and complexity of causal ramifications and flow-through effects are overwhelming and impossible to predict.
The donation will inevitably affect attitudes, values, consumption, economic growth, technological development, populations, geopolitical events, etc. in chaotic and unpredictable ways.
The philanthropy advisor should arguably be agnostic about whether the overall consequences will be positive or negative.
This thought experiment may be a compelling illustration of the motivations for “cluelessness” about long-term effects, avoiding some shortcomings of previous examples.
The story makes it clear that the choice matters significantly despite our cluelessness, and the “future remains unchanged” objection does not apply.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.