Thank you for this. Assuming that your kind heart, contemplative insight, and outstanding dedication make you someone who contributes greatly to any area they focus on, please just do not forget to focus on causes that are neglected by the for-profit sector (e. g. researching cost-effective prevention/cures to any of the 19⁄20 neglected tropical diseases not yet covered by EA charities, as opposed to researching something like baldness (that takes more funds than malaria research), or cancer, or Alzheimer’s disease that burdens predominantly rich people who live long lives and thus has perhaps 1000x more funding/focus). It is a structural issue that those who are privileged and kind focus on helping their communities (that are similarly privileged), in consequence hurting others who these kind people counterfactually neglect.
Please do not research Alzheimer’s disease to make your father proud (unless there is a sound case that it is better for the world than researching some of the NTDs), continue his work by researching a neglected cause that makes the world a better place truly-counterfactually and cost-effectively.
I think these issues are extremely complex, and I think you bring up a good point, one with underlying values that I agree with. Nevertheless, many of my research interests are in Alzheimer’s, chronic severe pain, and life extension. I think that people in poor countries ultimately are going to improve their length and quality of life, and there’s a strong trend in that direction already. I am long on Malaria being eradicated within the next 30 years. We mostly know what to do; what’s holding us back is a combination of environmental caution and the challenges of culturally sensitive governance.
I’m most concerned with the despair and suffering of the elderly and chronically ill, from a sheer “loss of utility” perspective. These problems are incredibly complex: we still just have one Alhzeimer’s drug, and it buys you maybe an extra year. We don’t understand how pain works. Most of the utility of the investment in R&D lies at the end of the research process, so the non-neglected nature of these problems is irrelevant from the perspective of utility. Of course, it’s quite relevant from the perspective of basic fairness. That’s just less of a motivator for me.
Beyond that, I’m sort of an immortalist. I think that the best way to get people to broaden their moral horizons and think long-term is to make them life longer, happier, healthier lives. I honestly do think it’s an emergency that even in the industrialized world, life expectancy is only into the late 70s and our declines come with lots of suffering. You spend your best years trying to save up to afford your worst years. Preaching about animals and the poor and our descendents doesn’t work on a scale big enough to change the world. The only way I see to change the situation is to dramatically improve the experience of old age and reduce chronic suffering. My intuition is that happy and relaxed people are more compassionate, and that it’s fear or the experience of pain and dementia that undermine our happiness and contemplative ability.
Very clear argument, thank you. While I do not believe that I can change your mind, judging from your tone, I also think that I do not need to: happier and more relaxed people may truly be in a better position to share their privileges with others, who then will be also happier and more relaxed. Then, I hope you will succeed in your research, while reminding your peers about the cost-effective, EA ways to share happiness with persons in the world.
Thank you for this. Assuming that your kind heart, contemplative insight, and outstanding dedication make you someone who contributes greatly to any area they focus on, please just do not forget to focus on causes that are neglected by the for-profit sector (e. g. researching cost-effective prevention/cures to any of the 19⁄20 neglected tropical diseases not yet covered by EA charities, as opposed to researching something like baldness (that takes more funds than malaria research), or cancer, or Alzheimer’s disease that burdens predominantly rich people who live long lives and thus has perhaps 1000x more funding/focus). It is a structural issue that those who are privileged and kind focus on helping their communities (that are similarly privileged), in consequence hurting others who these kind people counterfactually neglect.
Please do not research Alzheimer’s disease to make your father proud (unless there is a sound case that it is better for the world than researching some of the NTDs), continue his work by researching a neglected cause that makes the world a better place truly-counterfactually and cost-effectively.
I think these issues are extremely complex, and I think you bring up a good point, one with underlying values that I agree with. Nevertheless, many of my research interests are in Alzheimer’s, chronic severe pain, and life extension. I think that people in poor countries ultimately are going to improve their length and quality of life, and there’s a strong trend in that direction already. I am long on Malaria being eradicated within the next 30 years. We mostly know what to do; what’s holding us back is a combination of environmental caution and the challenges of culturally sensitive governance.
I’m most concerned with the despair and suffering of the elderly and chronically ill, from a sheer “loss of utility” perspective. These problems are incredibly complex: we still just have one Alhzeimer’s drug, and it buys you maybe an extra year. We don’t understand how pain works. Most of the utility of the investment in R&D lies at the end of the research process, so the non-neglected nature of these problems is irrelevant from the perspective of utility. Of course, it’s quite relevant from the perspective of basic fairness. That’s just less of a motivator for me.
Beyond that, I’m sort of an immortalist. I think that the best way to get people to broaden their moral horizons and think long-term is to make them life longer, happier, healthier lives. I honestly do think it’s an emergency that even in the industrialized world, life expectancy is only into the late 70s and our declines come with lots of suffering. You spend your best years trying to save up to afford your worst years. Preaching about animals and the poor and our descendents doesn’t work on a scale big enough to change the world. The only way I see to change the situation is to dramatically improve the experience of old age and reduce chronic suffering. My intuition is that happy and relaxed people are more compassionate, and that it’s fear or the experience of pain and dementia that undermine our happiness and contemplative ability.
Very clear argument, thank you. While I do not believe that I can change your mind, judging from your tone, I also think that I do not need to: happier and more relaxed people may truly be in a better position to share their privileges with others, who then will be also happier and more relaxed. Then, I hope you will succeed in your research, while reminding your peers about the cost-effective, EA ways to share happiness with persons in the world.