Boring meta comment on the reception of this post: Has anyone downvoting it read it? I don’t see how you could even skim it without noticing its patent seriousness and the modesty of its conclusion.
(Pardon the aside, Richard; I plan to comment on the substance in the next few days.)
Thanks, Gavin! I look forward to your comment! I’m new to the forum, and didn’t really understand the implications of the downvotes. But in any case, yes, the post is definitely meant in good faith! It’s my attempt to grapple with a tension between my philanthropic commitments and my views on how risk should be incorporated in both prudential and moral decision-making.
The question that comes to mind here is, do academic articles like this, or amateur articles like mine, meaningfully change anything?
While I was born to type and have no choice but to do so, abstractions in print seems a very weak medium. The experience of writing can be an overwhelmingly compelling experience to the writer, but I suspect the vast majority of the time whatever we write goes in one ear and out the other of the audience. Maybe mildly entertaining for a few moments, and then it’s on to 10,000 other things.
I don’t think this is really the fault of writers or readers so much as it is the human condition to have a very limited ability to convert abstractions in to real world action.
A far more effective medium for real world change is pain. Once we put our hands on the hot stove once, we no longer need to read sophisticated articles about the dangers involved. Bingo, job done, in a flash.
I think we’re all typing, typing, typing, hoping to build a seawall that will hold off the tsunami that is coming, but we’re not going to really understand what we’re typing about until the tsunami arrives.
Boring meta comment on the reception of this post: Has anyone downvoting it read it? I don’t see how you could even skim it without noticing its patent seriousness and the modesty of its conclusion.
(Pardon the aside, Richard; I plan to comment on the substance in the next few days.)
Thanks, Gavin! I look forward to your comment! I’m new to the forum, and didn’t really understand the implications of the downvotes. But in any case, yes, the post is definitely meant in good faith! It’s my attempt to grapple with a tension between my philanthropic commitments and my views on how risk should be incorporated in both prudential and moral decision-making.
The question that comes to mind here is, do academic articles like this, or amateur articles like mine, meaningfully change anything?
While I was born to type and have no choice but to do so, abstractions in print seems a very weak medium. The experience of writing can be an overwhelmingly compelling experience to the writer, but I suspect the vast majority of the time whatever we write goes in one ear and out the other of the audience. Maybe mildly entertaining for a few moments, and then it’s on to 10,000 other things.
I don’t think this is really the fault of writers or readers so much as it is the human condition to have a very limited ability to convert abstractions in to real world action.
A far more effective medium for real world change is pain. Once we put our hands on the hot stove once, we no longer need to read sophisticated articles about the dangers involved. Bingo, job done, in a flash.
I think we’re all typing, typing, typing, hoping to build a seawall that will hold off the tsunami that is coming, but we’re not going to really understand what we’re typing about until the tsunami arrives.