Effective Altruism and Meaning in Life

Sup­pose I fail to make a ma­jor al­tru­is­tic break­through with my life. Can my life still be mean­ingful? Do I still have value as a per­son?

We know in our heads we’re sup­posed to an­swer ‘yes’ to these ques­tions. But in our guts, these days—these days of great loathing over the difficulty of get­ting jobs in EA—it can feel to many of us like we’re stuck liv­ing lives that are ut­terly or­di­nary, marginal, minus­cule, im­pactless, in­signifi­cant, re­place­able, un­o­rigi­nal, unim­por­tant, un­in­spiring, or un­in­spired.

The minds of EAs are, ad­mirably, more scope-sen­si­tive re­gard­ing im­pact than av­er­age, un­trained in­tu­itions. The great saints of EA—heroes like Stanis­lov Petrov, Nor­man Bor­laug, or var­i­ous philan­thropists and non­profit founders—truly do save or im­prove many, many or­ders of mag­ni­tude more lives than a typ­i­cal per­son. This can tempt our guts, if not our heads, to feel we are many, many or­ders of mag­ni­tude less im­por­tant than we could or should be.

What fol­lows is an alle­gor­i­cal, car­i­ca­tured chronol­ogy of how I got to the point of cov­et­ing elu­sive EA tal­ent-gaps, but then re­al­ized I was stak­ing too much of my self-worth on suc­cess as an EA. It men­tions “saints” and “an­gels” that al­tered my tra­jec­tory and see­sawed my op­ti­mism. Why on earth would I use these metaphors? Well, it’s not only be­cause it’s more fun (though it is). The hope is that oth­ers will find the story fa­mil­iar, amus­ing, or re­as­sur­ing, and will gain some per­spec­tive on mean­ing in life and how EA does and does not con­tribute to it.

“Build a Move­ment”: The Gospel ac­cord­ing to St. Peter

The vivid yel­low cover of St. Peter’s gospel shone per­sua­sively, al­most blind­ingly, into my eyes. Its em­pow­er­ing ti­tle, The Life You Can Save, was as lur­ing as the pre­cious, sad-look­ing child whose pic­ture helped spell out the ti­tle.

I held it in my very hands as I gazed amazed around the uni­ver­sity lawn, ex­cit­edly in di­a­log with some of the most in­tel­li­gent, am­bi­tious young al­tru­ists I had ever met. Boldly, we brain­stormed the myr­iad ways we could pro­mote effec­tive giv­ing to our com­mu­nity.

And unto us St. Peter spake:

I think we should ad­vo­cate the level of giv­ing that will raise the largest pos­si­ble to­tal, and so have the best con­se­quences. . . . [R]oughly 5 per­cent of an­nual in­come for those who are fi­nan­cially com­fortable, and rather more for the very rich. My hope is that peo­ple will be con­vinced that they can and should give at this level. I be­lieve that do­ing so would be a first step to­ward restor­ing the eth­i­cal im­por­tance of giv­ing as an es­sen­tial com­po­nent of a well-lived life. And if it is widely adopted, we’ll have more than enough to end ex­treme poverty. (p. 152)

Soon we faith­ful would go on to start a Giv­ing What We Can chap­ter which would meet near that very lawn. Sacra­ments de­vel­oped in short or­der: we Lived Below the Line once a year; we took the Giv­ing What We Can Pledge or at least Tried Giv­ing; we pro­moted effec­tive al­tru­ism across cam­pus; we de­bated whether to give now or give later. Fi­nally we had found our great call­ing and pur­pose; at last we were part of some­thing larger than our­selves. And much un­like su­per­sti­tious apos­tasies, we were able to to defend ev­ery de­tail with sound logic, even equa­tions, some fit for the back of an en­velope.

Tri­als: a slow-ig­nit­ing revolution

Alas, temp­ta­tion soon sur­rounded us, and we wa­vered in our walks. We grew weary of harp­ing on the same mes­sage, de­spite our yearn­ings to per­se­vere. Con­ver­sions were slow: for ev­ery hun­dred peo­ple ex­posed to our holy re­frain, ‘your dol­lar goes fur­ther over­seas’, barely one or two were trans­formed by our gospel. Even for the con­verts we scarcely had enough rous­ing rit­u­als: sign­ing the Pledge was one-time; Live Below the Line was once a year; de­bates over cause se­lec­tion and when-to-give grew tire­some; in­ter­ven­tion re­search was difficult and best out­sourced to GiveWell.

Even more try­ing, we were too poor to Try much Giv­ing. As the old­est of us aged into the work­force, few of us were lucky enough to land jobs at the likes of GiveWell or Ox­fam. We craved ca­reer ad­vice on how to launch our­selves into the EA ecosys­tem of donors, di­rect work­ers, and re­searchers of in­ter­ven­tions.

To our delight, St. Peter proph­e­sied for our souls a great nour­ish­ment. His dis­ci­ple, St. William, would provide unto us a plen­teous bounty of wis­dom re­gard­ing pre­cisely how to pro­ceed.

Even more delight­ful was the promise that we could pur­sue our paths while still en­joy­ing all the com­forts of well-off Western lives, per­haps even lu­cra­tive ones.

“Earn to Give [or some­thing]”: The Gospel ac­cord­ing St. William

EA Global’s sign-in booth was overflow­ing with shin­ing blue copies of an im­mac­u­late new gospel, in­struct­ing us in the holy ways of Do­ing Good Bet­ter. As proph­e­sied, St. William gave unto us a blessed in­struc­tion: do not fol­low your pas­sion. Find a per­sonal fit for your ca­reer that matches your skills (and also, hope­fully, makes you rea­son­ably happy).

St. William spake unto us:

Taken liter­ally, . . . the idea of fol­low­ing your pas­sion is ter­rible ad­vice. Find­ing a ca­reer that’s the right “fit” for you is cru­cial to find­ing a ca­reer, but be­liev­ing you must find some pre­or­dained “pas­sion” and then pur­sue jobs that match it is all wrong. . . . Should you pick a ca­reer by iden­ti­fy­ing your great­est in­ter­est, find­ing jobs that “match” that in­ter­est and pur­su­ing them no mat­ter what? On the ba­sis of the ev­i­dence, the an­swer seems to be no.” (Ch. 9)

What we should want in a ca­reer, he taught us, were fac­tors like flex­ible ca­reer cap­i­tal and ir­re­place­abil­ity. Ad­di­tion­ally, we should seek generic traits of happy work­places: the abil­ity to work au­tonomously, to have a sense of com­ple­tion, va­ri­ety, feed­back, and a feel­ing of helping oth­ers. St. William’s ex­em­plars of im­pact were the likes of man­age­ment con­sul­tants, quan­ti­ta­tive traders, tech en­trepreneurs, data sci­en­tists, and soft­ware en­g­ineers. Tra­di­tional paths—law, medicine, poli­tics, non­prof­its—were over­crowded, and fea­tured a higher like­li­hood that one’s con­tri­bu­tion was bound to make one re­place­able.

Like many a saint, I took the plunge: I went for flex­ible ca­reer cap­i­tal over im­me­di­ate im­pact, gen­eral skills over spe­cific ex­pe­rience, strat­egy over pas­sion. I joined Deloitte; I at­tended App Academy; or I in­terned at Jane Street. Although many be­nighted Ineffec­tive Altru­ists were con­fused as to where the al­tru­ism in this scheme resided, my fel­low EAs and I all un­der­stood: this was all, re­ally and truly, for the least for­tu­nate.

Tribu­la­tions: a des­per­ate long­ing to re­turn to the action

A cou­ple of years passed. EA news kept fea­tur­ing more sto­ries of ma­jor grants and char­ity star­tups backed by ma­jor EA fun­ders such as Good Ven­tures. As fund­ing gaps be­came less and less ur­gent, my of­ten-tire­some, min­i­mally re­ward­ing earn-to-give job felt ever more pointless. EA Global and EAGx events circa 2017 and 2018 put a prime em­pha­sis on get­ting peo­ple to switch ca­reers (of­ten for the sec­ond or third time) into paths that would al­low them to have di­rect im­pact through their work on pri­or­ity cause ar­eas. AI Safety, and pub­lic policy re­lat­ing thereto, were given pride of place. Com­mu­nity mem­bers who had long fo­cused on such ex­is­ten­tial risks en­joyed in­creased pop­u­lar­ity and so­cial sta­tus. To be a truly effec­tive al­tru­ist was to be a Ra­tion­al­ist and a fu­tur­ist.

The lack of mis­sion-driven­ness in my own work started to drive me to­ward de­spair. I be­came en­vi­ous of EAs just en­ter­ing uni­ver­sity with time to ma­jor in the right things. “What the hell,” I won­dered fre­quently, “was I do­ing when I de­cided this was the way to be al­tru­is­tic?” On many a Fri­day af­ter­noon I would finish an­other week at my six-figure job, walk out to a nearby park in my well-to-do Western city, and cry about how mean­ingless it all seemed.

Some­one was needed to cast out these demons. Some­one with the au­thor­ity to speak on be­half of St. William. Some­one to fi­nally de­liver us unto the path of the im­por­tant, the ne­glected, and the tractable.

“Go Forth and Fill Key Ta­lent Gaps”: The Gospel of St. Benjamin

As if the next morn­ing, the EA com­mu­nity awoke to the re­al­iza­tion of a sim­ple truth. Many ca­reer paths that seemed high-im­pact re­ally were. Emerg­ing tech­nolo­gies, biose­cu­rity, and gov­ern­ment poli­cies re­lat­ing thereto were ev­ery bit as enor­mously im­por­tant as com­mon sense sug­gests. Mean­while, our ca­reer cap­i­tal in JavaScript or busi­ness strat­egy had earned us a quick $50 or $150K but they had done noth­ing to skill us up for ‘pri­or­ity paths’ in cy­ber­se­cu­rity, pan­demic pre­pared­ness, AI safety, or nu­clear non-pro­lifer­a­tion.

Unto us, St. Ben­jamin’s cho­rus of sages re­canted:

In the main ca­reer guide, we pro­mote the idea of gain­ing “ca­reer cap­i­tal” early in your ca­reer. This has led to some en­gaged users to fo­cus on op­tions like con­sult­ing, soft­ware en­g­ineer­ing, and tech en­trepreneur­ship, when ac­tu­ally we think these are rarely the best early ca­reer op­tions if you’re fo­cused on our top prob­lems ar­eas. In­stead, it seems like most peo­ple should fo­cus on en­ter­ing a pri­or­ity path di­rectly, or per­haps go to grad­u­ate school. . . . [W]e put too much em­pha­sis on flex­i­bil­ity, and not enough on build­ing the ca­reer cap­i­tal that’s needed in the most press­ing prob­lem ar­eas.

As this re­al­iza­tion sunk in, many EA groups tran­si­tioned into ca­reerist think-clubs. In­creas­ingly, EA cul­ture tran­si­tioned to a con­ver­sa­tion about how to get into gov­ern­ment, to start the right think tank, to build the right kinds of policy and tech­ni­cal ex­per­tise. The White House Office of Science and Tech­nol­ogy Policy was now more pres­ti­gious to us than Deloitte had ever seemed. This seemed both cor­rect and in­tu­itive; most of us should have been more straight­for­wardly al­tru­is­tic the whole time.

So we quit our jobs. Scores of us. Even some of the ex­em­plars from St. William’s gospel or 80,000 Hours’ ca­reer guide on earn­ing to give have changed strate­gies. Earn­ing-to-give, and even earn­ing-for-gen­eral-skill-build­ing, have fast be­come strate­gies of the past. It has been re­liev­ing. And we have be­come ex­cited to join the all-im­por­tant EA and gov­ern­men­tal or­ga­ni­za­tions in which we might save the world.

Vex­a­tions: ab­surd lev­els of competition

But hun­dreds of us be­gan ap­ply­ing to the same few po­si­tions. De­spite hun­dreds of thou­sands of monthly unique web­site vis­i­tors and tens of thou­sands of listen­ers for each pod­cast, 80K’s job board typ­i­cally has con­tained only a few dozen jobs. Pre­dictably, many hun­dreds of peo­ple be­gan ap­ply­ing for the same po­si­tions at the likes of Open Phil. In­cred­ibly tal­ented peo­ple started spend­ing many months ap­ply­ing to a dozen or two EA jobs only to wind up empty-handed. Nat­u­rally, their ilk be­gan to de­spair, con­fess­ing they felt “a to­tal loser that will never con­tribute any­thing to­wards mak­ing the world a bet­ter place”; “very dis­illu­sioned about [their] abil­ity to con­tribute to the long-ter­mist pro­ject”; and faced with a choice be­tween ei­ther A) try­ing and (prob­a­bly) failing to be­come an EA or­ga­ni­za­tion em­ployee or B) do­ing largely mean­ingless work. Amidst these psy­cholog­i­cal ru­ins, some be­gan helpfully strate­giz­ing about what to do with peo­ple? and build­ing lists of things for peo­ple to do.

A Diver­sifi­ca­tion of Mean­ing Sources

Per­sis­tent Altruism

Much to their credit, EAs be­gan to get clever and cre­ative. Guided by crite­ria of ne­glect­ed­ness, scale, tractabil­ity, and nar­row ca­reer cap­i­tal, they tended to switch into fields and roles which, al­though not always at the fore­front of EA con­scious­ness, were promis­ingly high-im­pact. They

  • started non­prof­its to re­search wild an­i­mal suffer­ing;

  • cam­paigned for drug liber­al­iza­tion;

  • pur­sued poli­ti­cal office and cam­paigned to le­gal­ize pros­ti­tu­tion and in­sti­tute uni­ver­sal ba­sic in­come;

  • sought roles in the clean or plant-based meat in­dus­tries;

  • started new, ex­per­i­men­tal EA com­mu­nity cen­ters;

  • pur­sued in­tern­ships in leg­is­la­tures;

  • joined tra­di­tional an­i­mal rights or­ga­ni­za­tions to help them in­cor­po­rate more EA prin­ci­ples;

and much more.

I be­came a pil­grim seek­ing to join in all this, this Great Branch­ing Out of effec­tive al­tru­ists circa the 10th an­niver­sary of St. Peter’s gospel. With a close eye on job boards, I ap­plied for many a poli­ti­cal and policy-re­lated po­si­tion and tried to learn my ut­most re­gard­ing AI and its risks. As I ven­tured ever fur­ther on the road to the prover­bial Capi­tol, I pon­dered all the risks and challenges await­ing me. Would I re­ally flour­ish leav­ing a comfy six-figure salary to sort mail at a Se­na­tor’s office? Would I re­ally be happy set­tling for $40K per year at an an­i­mal welfare non­profit job? Would I re­ally thrive in an op­er­a­tions or ex­ec­u­tive as­sis­tant role at an x-risk or­ga­ni­za­tion? Were these a truly fulfilling va­ri­ety of 21st-cen­tury EA as­ceti­cism, or would I suffer as a re­sult of not us­ing all the writ­ing or rea­son­ing or math­e­mat­i­cal or pro­gram­ming or busi­ness tal­ent I had built up?

Would 80,000 Hours change its mind a few more times, jar­ring my ca­reer course to and fro in­definitely?

But then there came a great rev­e­la­tion: I was seek­ing nearly all my life’s mean­ing from suc­cess pur­su­ing 80K’s pri­or­ity paths. There was so much more I could live for.

An Epiphany on the Road to the Capitol

Around me there shone a great light. The heav­ens opened, and choirs of an­gels sang, ac­com­panied by blaz­ing trum­pets and im­mac­u­late harps. Down from the clouds de­scended a host of an­gels who sang unto me, so sa­credly and so pro­fanely, with the fol­low­ing words.

Sang the An­gel of Epistemic Hu­mil­ity:

Epistemic sta­tus: more cer­ti­tude than cer­tainty, but fuck it.

Sang the Ar­changel of Mean­ing:

Thou shalt pur­sue a life of mean­ing.
There is more to life than al­tru­ism, and more than effec­tive al­tru­ism.
Thou shalt re­mem­ber that al­tru­is­tic ac­com­plish­ment and suc­cess, while an an­i­mat­ing and ro­bust source of mean­ing, is by no means mean­ing’s only source.
It is as St. Su­san has ex­plained re­gard­ing con­sid­ered in­tu­itions about what makes lives mean­ingful:
> [M]ean­ingful­ness in life [comes] from lov­ing some­thing (or a num­ber of things) wor­thy of love, and be­ing able to en­gage with it (or them) in some pos­i­tive way. . . . [M]ean­ing in life con­sists in and arises from ac­tively en­gag­ing in pro­jects of worth. . . .
> The pop­u­lar view that takes mean­ingful­ness to con­sist in find­ing one’s pas­sion and pur­su­ing it can be taken as a way to em­pha­size the role that love, or sub­jec­tive at­trac­tion, plays in mean­ing. The equally fa­mil­iar view that as­so­ci­ates mean­ing with a con­tri­bu­tion to or in­volve­ment with some­thing larger than one­self can be un­der­stood as em­pha­siz­ing the role of ob­jec­tive value or worth. (p. 26)
A Sisy­phus satis­fied—in­tox­i­cated by in­definitely stim­u­lat­ing drugs but in­definitely oc­cu­pied with rol­ling a sim­ple stone up a hill—can earn no epi­taph more flat­ter­ing than ‘that sure was pointless, but at least he had fun’.
Com­ple­men­tar­ily, a wretchedly lonely, bored, billion­aire, whose posthu­mous as­sets ac­ci­den­tally fund break­through can­cer re­search, earns no epi­taph more ac­clam­a­tory than ‘it’s great her be­quest sort of made up for her lonely, love­less life of dis­en­gage­ment’.
Thou shalt seek for thy tomb­stone to say some­thing more like: ‘she was as pas­sion­ate about the peo­ple and pur­suits she loved as she was about suc­cess­fully mak­ing the world a sig­nifi­cantly bet­ter place’.
Thou shalt not con­flate al­tru­is­tic suc­cess with self-worth.

Sang the An­gel of Pas­sion:

Thou shalt fol­low thy pas­sion.
The core idea of find­ing a pas­sion and tena­ciously pur­su­ing it was always a re­mark­ably tremen­dous idea.
And of course we mean, not fol­low­ing just any, un­re­flec­tive, un­tu­tored pas­sion for su­per mun­dane, cliché, or or­di­nary shit. After all, as­piring pro­fes­sional ath­letes and en­ter­tain­ers of non-elite tal­ent truly are far too nu­mer­ous. Rather we of course mean re­flec­tive pas­sions an­chored to se­ri­ous needs in the world.
To en­sure longevity in your drive to do good within a par­tic­u­lar role, you should choose to work on an is­sue that you iden­tify with. Yes, dear effec­tive al­tru­ist, it is great to try to build ex­cite­ment about is­sues that are es­pe­cially im­por­tant and ne­glected. And when an­chor­ing and de­vel­op­ing your en­thu­si­asms, you cer­tainly ought to pay at­ten­tion to the world’s most se­ri­ous prob­lems and try to think as ra­tio­nally and scope-sen­si­tively about them as any­one ever has.
But be­fore too long you’ll burn out on it if it’s not some­thing you are fuck­ing pas­sion­ate about on some fairly deep emo­tional level.
What else will be re­spon­si­ble for you to sur­mount the nu­mer­ous ob­sta­cles you will face? What else will help you out-com­pete the oth­ers who will crowd you out from get­ting your shot at a difficult prob­lem?

Sang the An­gel of Love:

Thou shalt en­gage with whom you love. And thou shalt en­gage with what you love.
We are af­forded pre­cious few beau­tiful crea­tures with whom we get to form the valuable re­la­tion­ships that help us through life. Th­ese mu­tual lov­ing re­la­tion­ships an­i­mate and beau­tify our lives; they ground us. They are the only re­la­tions be­tween any two things in the uni­verse which in­volve a deep re­ciproc­ity of con­scious emo­tional ties. Without our loved ones, the peak of our ex­is­tence would be that of iso­lated con­scious­nesses hav­ing pleas­ant ex­pe­riences all on our own. Per­haps we could be soli­tary util­ity mon­sters in iso­lated ex­pe­rience ma­chines. But we could never at­tain the in­ef­fable and mean­ingful won­der of a sta­ble emo­tional con­nec­tion with an­other con­scious be­ing.
And then there is love of ac­tivi­ties. Creat­ing, ex­plor­ing, ex­pe­rienc­ing, mas­ter­ing all the va­ri­eties of pur­suits this world makes available. Self-re­al­iza­tion, aes­thetic ex­pres­sion, com­mu­nion with na­ture, grasp­ing the fun­da­ments of na­ture and math­e­mat­ics and logic: all these are wait­ing to be dis­cov­ered, in­ter­acted with, played with, un­der­stood. In­vest a bit—fuck, maybe even a whole lot—in in­ter­act­ing with the amaz­ing things in this world, from an­thro­pol­ogy to his­tory to mu­sic to zo­ol­ogy. (And sports are great; fuck the haters.)
As St. Su­san sug­gests, meaning
> is not (equiv­a­lent to) hap­piness, and it is not (equiv­a­lent to) moral­ity. Rec­og­niz­ing that mean­ing is some­thing de­sir­able in life, some­thing we want both for our­selves and for oth­ers, means rec­og­niz­ing that there is more to life than ei­ther of these cat­e­gories, even taken to­gether, sug­gests. This means, among other things, that it need not be ir­ra­tional to choose to spend one’s time do­ing some­thing that nei­ther max­i­mizes one’s own good nor is morally best. (p. 49)
And, who knows, you may just be­come a more effec­tive, or at least a more well-rounded, al­tru­ist if you live a lit­tle—and love a lot.

Thus sang, har­mo­niously, the An­gels of Truth and Beauty:

Thou shalt pur­sue truth and beauty, along with knowl­edge, un­der­stand­ing, and wis­dom. And re­joice that oth­ers have done so!
- Re­joice that Baruch Spinoza wrote the Ethics rather than dou­bling down on his lens-grind­ing busi­ness to sup­port effec­tive char­i­ties.
- Re­joice that Lud­wig van Beethoven didn’t give up on mu­sic to pur­sue mun­dane, even al­tru­is­tic ac­tivi­ties, look­ing for a higher ‘per­sonal fit’ on ac­count of his hear­ing loss.
- Re­joice that Frida Kahlo didn’t sim­ply re­turn to med­i­cal stud­ies af­ter heal­ing from her traf­fic ac­ci­dent, but in­stead pur­sued her artis­tic gifts to be­come a cul­tural, poli­ti­cal, and aes­thetic icon.
- Re­joice that Kurt Von­negut didn’t put more at­ten­tion into earn­ing-to-give in his car sales­man job.
Be an al­tru­ist. But do not for­get the wide va­ri­ety of im­por­tant ways to use a life that fall out­side the nar­row EA mind­set.

Sang the An­gel of Vi­sion:

Thou shalt find thy vi­sion, and pro­ject thy voice. And re­joice that oth­ers have done so!
- Re­joice that Sid­dhartha Gau­tama didn’t fo­cus on earn­ing-to-give.
- Re­joice that Martin Luther didn’t try to work up a beau­ro­cratic lad­der as a gov­ern­ment offi­cial.
- Re­joice that Martin Luther King, Jr. never switched to a ca­reer in statis­tics, to start a hip think-tank, to clev­erly A/​B test mes­sages, to find out which re­forms of Jim Crow poli­cies most ap­pealed to vot­ers.
- Re­joice that Har­vey Milk sim­ply ran for office, over and over and over and over, mo­ti­vat­ing an en­tire move­ment through iconic lead­er­ship and care­fully crafted words. Re­joice that he spent his en­er­gies build­ing a so­ciopoli­ti­cal move­ment rather than let­ting (say) fundrais­ing, or the sale of clever mer­chan­dise for sup­port­ers, eat up all his time.
Make no mis­take: we need role-play­ers! Not ev­ery­one can lead at once. It won’t work for ev­ery­one to try to be chief vi­sion­ary. But what is key is that the lot of us find and par­ti­ci­pate in and mo­ti­vate each other with shared vi­sions of jus­tice, pros­per­ity, and holis­ti­cally ro­bust ex­pe­rience for all sen­tient crea­tures.
The key to en­sur­ing a pow­er­ful, trans­for­ma­tional, mem­o­rable legacy—as in­di­vi­d­u­als and as a move­ment—is for enough of us to find our voice. Clever calcu­la­tions about ca­reer cap­i­tal can dis­tract us from find­ing the core mes­sages we want and need to put for­ward about the way we want this world to be.

The EAttitudes

- Effec­tive are those who dream be­yond day jobs at Open Philan­thropy Pro­ject, for they may add much greater value;
- Effec­tive are those who search be­yond EA job boards, for they will make them­selves truly ir­re­place­able;
- Effec­tive are those whose vi­sion builds move­ments, for they will cre­ate Cause X;
- Altru­is­tic are those who hunger and thirst for pos­i­tive world-change, for the ex­pected re­sult is such trans­for­ma­tion;
- Altru­is­tic are those who la­bor and toil at the white­board spec­u­lat­ing, for their efforts are among the like­liest to pre­serve in­nu­mer­able lives;
- Altru­is­tic are those who earn to give pas­sion­ately, for their in­fluence will nour­ish en­tire com­mu­ni­ties;
- Happy are they who live lives well-rounded, for their lega­cies will re­sound both far and near;
- Happy are those who do not let life “live” them, for they will live their lives most fully;
- Happy are those whose steps are guided by love, for they will find the en­ergy that makes all efforts worth it.

Sang the An­gel of Feed­back:

The com­mu­nity’s in­sight will help sep­a­rate the wheat of these rev­e­la­tions from the chaff.