Especially the number 6 is hard (for me). I have colleagues who are completely content with their explicit opinion that suffering becomes irrelevant if it’s sufficiently far away from them spatially. One of them admits that he might be wrong but no longer wants to adapt his world view to new evidence. It’s a situation where I see no other way than number 6. But whenever I saw them I was reminded of all the suffering they disregard, in graphic detail. It became hard to concentrate on anything they said at work. What helped me was what Peter Singer writes in The Life You Can Save:
The question really amounts to asking: Is the fact that other people are not doing their fair share a sufficient reason for allowing a child to die when you could easily rescue that child? I think the answer is clear: No. The others have, by refusing to help with the rescue, made themselves irrelevant. They might as well be so many rocks.
I also find this irritating but just think about it as playing a long game. Badgering them or demand a high standard of behaviour isn’t going to be persuasive, but subtly setting a good example, seeming like a desirable person to emulate, and allowing them to come around in their own time might just work.
Keep in mind that there are lots of people out there to persuade. If someone has a below average receptiveness to our ideas then you are not using your time well continuing to persuade them—you would do better to find a new random person.
Also appreciate that humans are just monkeys that evolved a bit differently. You wouldn’t be shocked if a chimpanzee didn’t care about monkeys in another continent, so it’s not so shocking humans find it hard to generalise their empathy either.
Yes, thank you! I’ve mostly concentrated on the second aspect since it’s directly related to cost-effectiveness and very persuasive for me, but the first and third also complement it well.
I should print and hang an EA or AMF poster in the office; I just haven’t found any good ones yet. Or I can print Charity Science’s recent info graphic.
Especially the number 6 is hard (for me). I have colleagues who are completely content with their explicit opinion that suffering becomes irrelevant if it’s sufficiently far away from them spatially. One of them admits that he might be wrong but no longer wants to adapt his world view to new evidence. It’s a situation where I see no other way than number 6. But whenever I saw them I was reminded of all the suffering they disregard, in graphic detail. It became hard to concentrate on anything they said at work. What helped me was what Peter Singer writes in The Life You Can Save:
If I imagine them as talking rocks, I can cope.
I also find this irritating but just think about it as playing a long game. Badgering them or demand a high standard of behaviour isn’t going to be persuasive, but subtly setting a good example, seeming like a desirable person to emulate, and allowing them to come around in their own time might just work.
Keep in mind that there are lots of people out there to persuade. If someone has a below average receptiveness to our ideas then you are not using your time well continuing to persuade them—you would do better to find a new random person.
Also appreciate that humans are just monkeys that evolved a bit differently. You wouldn’t be shocked if a chimpanzee didn’t care about monkeys in another continent, so it’s not so shocking humans find it hard to generalise their empathy either.
Get em young, seriously, only several decades to refresh a generation.
Yes, thank you! I’ve mostly concentrated on the second aspect since it’s directly related to cost-effectiveness and very persuasive for me, but the first and third also complement it well.
I should print and hang an EA or AMF poster in the office; I just haven’t found any good ones yet. Or I can print Charity Science’s recent info graphic.