I agree with the underlying logic, and I did point out that insofar as these suicide statistics imply additional suffering, hardships, downsides, etc., then they do highlight the importance of preventing rape.
However, framing matters. If you frame suicide in terms of productivity loss, you imply that people owe you existence for the sake of productivity. Even if you don’t intend this message, it’s at least the possibility of an easily avoidable miscommunication.
The same is true for the “lives saved” calculation, which implies that a high invountary survival rate is a good thing because it “saves lives”—ignoring that those may be people might actually prefer to have more reliable suicide options availabe, i.e. have the right to exit.
By the way, if the EA movement is causing harm by overlooking crucial considerations, then more productivity allocated to EA is the exact opposite of making the world a better place. Always a possiblity to take seriously. Even in that case, I don’t blame people in EA to want grant money, sell books and carreer coaches, have high karma etc. - I just don’t think giving them these things for free would then be actual altruism.
I don’t care about the karma, as it buys me nothing. However, I will point out that this is a sign of epistemic closure and that nothing I wrote was either unkind, untrue or irrelevant from an altruistic point of view.
You can’t make a thread saying sexual violence is bad because of suicide, and then not allow people to discuss the consent principle as it pertains to suicide.
If you use “lives saved” numbers that imply involuntary survival is good, then you will get commenters pointing out that this violates the consent principle. You are not immune to criticism.
Don’t want to discuss suicde? Then don’t bring it up.
The other points crossed some inferential distance, but were both relevant and correct. It really is true that most rape currently happens in nonhuman animals, and that the x-risk reduction efforts implies actively causing a future that contains astronomical amounts of additional rape. This is both true and relevant, even if it goes against the usual euphemistic framing and may therefore sound counterintuitive to you.
You can’t make a thread saying sexual violence is bad because of suicide, and then not allow people to discuss the consent principle as it pertains to suicide.
If you use “lives saved” numbers that imply involuntary survival is good, then you will get commenters pointing out that this violates the consent principle.
Well that is just a terrible argument, because no one’s consent is being violated when we prevent their lives from being bad enough that they want to commit suicide.
and that the x-risk reduction efforts implies actively causing a future that contains astronomical amounts of additional rape.
That’s not really new. Having more population implies having more of… everything.
This is both true and relevant, even if it goes against the usual euphemistic framing and may therefore sound counterintuitive to you
Look dude, if you want to go around saying “we should let the planet go extinct so that wildlife doesn’t endure the tragedy of existence” then the onus of justifying things that sound counterintuitive on their face is on you.
I agree with the underlying logic, and I did point out that insofar as these suicide statistics imply additional suffering, hardships, downsides, etc., then they do highlight the importance of preventing rape.
However, framing matters. If you frame suicide in terms of productivity loss, you imply that people owe you existence for the sake of productivity. Even if you don’t intend this message, it’s at least the possibility of an easily avoidable miscommunication.
The same is true for the “lives saved” calculation, which implies that a high invountary survival rate is a good thing because it “saves lives”—ignoring that those may be people might actually prefer to have more reliable suicide options availabe, i.e. have the right to exit.
By the way, if the EA movement is causing harm by overlooking crucial considerations, then more productivity allocated to EA is the exact opposite of making the world a better place. Always a possiblity to take seriously. Even in that case, I don’t blame people in EA to want grant money, sell books and carreer coaches, have high karma etc. - I just don’t think giving them these things for free would then be actual altruism.
I see downvotes without arguments.
I don’t care about the karma, as it buys me nothing. However, I will point out that this is a sign of epistemic closure and that nothing I wrote was either unkind, untrue or irrelevant from an altruistic point of view.
It is up to you not to cause harm.
You’re being downvoted because you’re using a thread about sexual violence as a platform for pushing your POV on an entirely different subject.
That’s incorrect.
You can’t make a thread saying sexual violence is bad because of suicide, and then not allow people to discuss the consent principle as it pertains to suicide.
If you use “lives saved” numbers that imply involuntary survival is good, then you will get commenters pointing out that this violates the consent principle. You are not immune to criticism.
Don’t want to discuss suicde? Then don’t bring it up.
The other points crossed some inferential distance, but were both relevant and correct. It really is true that most rape currently happens in nonhuman animals, and that the x-risk reduction efforts implies actively causing a future that contains astronomical amounts of additional rape. This is both true and relevant, even if it goes against the usual euphemistic framing and may therefore sound counterintuitive to you.
Well that is just a terrible argument, because no one’s consent is being violated when we prevent their lives from being bad enough that they want to commit suicide.
That’s not really new. Having more population implies having more of… everything.
Look dude, if you want to go around saying “we should let the planet go extinct so that wildlife doesn’t endure the tragedy of existence” then the onus of justifying things that sound counterintuitive on their face is on you.
Nice exercise in goalpost-moving, kbog.
Errrr, no.