I think there is a lot of potential in shifting individual social status dynamics (which are inextricable from human nature) away from conspicuous consumption and potentially towards âconspicuous, effective givingâ. The impact would be enormous if the wealthiest 5% of the world turned away from spending discretionary income on Louis Vuitton handbags and expensive jewelry for status, and instead used how many lives theyâve saved through GiveWell charities, etc.
From a simplified labor-based perspective, this would be functionally equivalent to diverting money to encourage people to spend their time working in global health, x-risk reduction, etc, as opposed to using money to encourage people to spend time laboriously crafting opulent luxury goods, mining and refining gemstones with no functional utility, and spending entire careers advertising lavish goods to no effect other than allowing those at the top of the materialist social hierarchy to flaunt their status.
Iâm curious what an effective top-down approach to promoting these social dynamics would look like.
Hey, thanks for the comment! And sorry about the late reply.
I agree that there is potential to shift the aims of status games towards, as you put it, âconspicuous, effective giving.â I think this would have great consequences overall, though there could be optics risks. (e.g. may not look good in the eyes of leftists, which could matter in some cases? EA mightâve already bitten that bullet though.)
You make a great point about the second order effects of steering these dynamics for good. I hadnât thought of it, but if you can change demand, youâre totally right that incentives around supply change too.
Perhaps advertising would be an effective (though surface level) top-down steering approach. Iâll let you know if I come across any others!
Interesting post!
I think there is a lot of potential in shifting individual social status dynamics (which are inextricable from human nature) away from conspicuous consumption and potentially towards âconspicuous, effective givingâ. The impact would be enormous if the wealthiest 5% of the world turned away from spending discretionary income on Louis Vuitton handbags and expensive jewelry for status, and instead used how many lives theyâve saved through GiveWell charities, etc.
From a simplified labor-based perspective, this would be functionally equivalent to diverting money to encourage people to spend their time working in global health, x-risk reduction, etc, as opposed to using money to encourage people to spend time laboriously crafting opulent luxury goods, mining and refining gemstones with no functional utility, and spending entire careers advertising lavish goods to no effect other than allowing those at the top of the materialist social hierarchy to flaunt their status.
Iâm curious what an effective top-down approach to promoting these social dynamics would look like.
Hey, thanks for the comment! And sorry about the late reply.
I agree that there is potential to shift the aims of status games towards, as you put it, âconspicuous, effective giving.â I think this would have great consequences overall, though there could be optics risks. (e.g. may not look good in the eyes of leftists, which could matter in some cases? EA mightâve already bitten that bullet though.)
You make a great point about the second order effects of steering these dynamics for good. I hadnât thought of it, but if you can change demand, youâre totally right that incentives around supply change too.
Perhaps advertising would be an effective (though surface level) top-down steering approach. Iâll let you know if I come across any others!