A good ancestor not only wants to protect their lineage from financial and livelihood risks, they also take into consideration the world they’re building for their future generations to live in.
A good ancestor doesn’t raze forests in the name of industrialization with the intent of growing the financial corpus they’ll pass on to down their inheritors, instead they consider that the resulting climate change might just make the world unlivable no matter how wealthy one is.
A good ancestor doesn’t think of their transactional life as a zero-sum game, instead they look at ways to symbiotically grow as a civilization to ensure the optimal future for the collective.
A good ancestor understands that no amount of resource appropriation can change the fact that each of us a re a singular human being in society, and nothing more or nothing less.
A good ancestor must respect the lives around them before striving for lives not yet born.
My biggest concern about EA thus far has been addressed to an extent by the week 7 readings!
While it does reassure me that the average EA’s writing and work are a lot more “maximizy” than their actions, it does add further clarity and a closer semblance to objectivity to assess potential blindsides while defining the maximand. This again ties in with how we individually compartmentalize our independent beliefs, and analyze how it ties in with and/or contradicts what we see as solid evidence.
It also heartened me to see that “EA beyond the west” is an identified area as well. Our collective efforts to do good can be nuanced with the diversification of perspectives we have.
One question of mine that still persists is lies in the fundamental of EA goals. Particularly, the (very valid) aim of EA to reduce suffering—a phenomenon that is subjective, nuanced and quite often a matter of perspective.