Does anyone else feel like EA thinking /personality takes them in this direction:
“Dorothea finds no ‘epic life’ and is eulogised as a ‘foundress of nothing’ whose efforts ‘are dispersed among hindrances, instead of centring in some long-recognisable deed.’”
when perhaps modern society and the structure of fame in such a big world works in favour of those with an ‘epic’ narrative that is easily accessible?
I think that western society in general privileges narratives about individual achievement, as well as it being a prominent feature of celebrity culture etc. I suspect that this is such a difference to the norm that we do better to embrace as a difference, if that makes sense. for myself, I’m heartened by an idea that says ‘nope, it’s not about the giver, it’s about the beneficiaries.’
Then again sometimes I crunch the numbers (like the fact I’ve personally funded the deworming of over 100,000 children. Then I feel like a goddamm superhero :)
Yes. Absolutely. And you are obviously a goddamm superhero :)
The implicit question was whether we could be more effective with a public profile, usually these are built around one narrative and changed maybe once or twice. I think Toby, WIll, Peter have this and as a result seem to have better opportunities to serve / focus on the beneficiaries?
I’m thinking that this is particularly important for people trying to solve big tractable problems with multiple interested parties hardly interested in EA?
Absolutely loved reading this. Thank you.
Does anyone else feel like EA thinking /personality takes them in this direction: “Dorothea finds no ‘epic life’ and is eulogised as a ‘foundress of nothing’ whose efforts ‘are dispersed among hindrances, instead of centring in some long-recognisable deed.’”
when perhaps modern society and the structure of fame in such a big world works in favour of those with an ‘epic’ narrative that is easily accessible?
I think that western society in general privileges narratives about individual achievement, as well as it being a prominent feature of celebrity culture etc. I suspect that this is such a difference to the norm that we do better to embrace as a difference, if that makes sense. for myself, I’m heartened by an idea that says ‘nope, it’s not about the giver, it’s about the beneficiaries.’
Then again sometimes I crunch the numbers (like the fact I’ve personally funded the deworming of over 100,000 children. Then I feel like a goddamm superhero :)
Yes. Absolutely. And you are obviously a goddamm superhero :)
The implicit question was whether we could be more effective with a public profile, usually these are built around one narrative and changed maybe once or twice. I think Toby, WIll, Peter have this and as a result seem to have better opportunities to serve / focus on the beneficiaries?
I’m thinking that this is particularly important for people trying to solve big tractable problems with multiple interested parties hardly interested in EA?