I don’t know to what extent Moskowitz could have influenced Zuckerberg, but I am somewhat intrigued by the potential power of negative emotion that you bring up.
Ironically, one of the emotions that reflection on effective altruism has brought me is rather intense anger. The vast majority of people in developed countries have the ability to use their resources to save lives, significantly mitigate the mass torture of animals, or otherwise make the world a much better place with the power they have. Yet, even when confronted squarely with this opportunity, most do not do it.
I think about other mass injustices and movements that have sought to address them and I think we remember that there was a place for righteous fury- I think of, for instance of women’s suffrage or the civil rights movement. But yet, the attitude regarding EAs is often conciliatory, milquetoast, professorial… almost embarrassed to be holding beliefs in which the judgment of most humans is only a close corollary away.
I realize that in one-on-one interactions, a condemnatory approach is unlikely to gain us allies. But I wonder if a powerful engine for fighting global poverty, animal torture, and the continued existence of conscious life might be the activation of the emotion that such matters merit.
I can relate to lot of what you said. Also, that’s an astute point you make about a more extreme being unlikely to help in one-on-one situations but having potential for shaping broader culture or changing the discourse.
Here’s one specific idea: a public record of how the ultra-rich use their money, which also converts the money they spend on themselves (e.g. on a yacht) into lives that could have been saved had they donated those funds.
I don’t know to what extent Moskowitz could have influenced Zuckerberg, but I am somewhat intrigued by the potential power of negative emotion that you bring up.
Ironically, one of the emotions that reflection on effective altruism has brought me is rather intense anger. The vast majority of people in developed countries have the ability to use their resources to save lives, significantly mitigate the mass torture of animals, or otherwise make the world a much better place with the power they have. Yet, even when confronted squarely with this opportunity, most do not do it.
I think about other mass injustices and movements that have sought to address them and I think we remember that there was a place for righteous fury- I think of, for instance of women’s suffrage or the civil rights movement. But yet, the attitude regarding EAs is often conciliatory, milquetoast, professorial… almost embarrassed to be holding beliefs in which the judgment of most humans is only a close corollary away.
I realize that in one-on-one interactions, a condemnatory approach is unlikely to gain us allies. But I wonder if a powerful engine for fighting global poverty, animal torture, and the continued existence of conscious life might be the activation of the emotion that such matters merit.
I can relate to lot of what you said. Also, that’s an astute point you make about a more extreme being unlikely to help in one-on-one situations but having potential for shaping broader culture or changing the discourse.
Here’s one specific idea: a public record of how the ultra-rich use their money, which also converts the money they spend on themselves (e.g. on a yacht) into lives that could have been saved had they donated those funds.