Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that I was limiting my scope to non-trans-human world improvement. If my initial focus is on “conventional” causes then it’s because I believe most of humanity isn’t ready to tackle existential risk, AI and transhuman issues until we can tackle the problems we’re having here and now.
I was also a little misleading in suggesting that the reasons the world was so bad are somehow mysterious to me. They were, but not so much any more—I may be completely wrong but at least I see the issue as no longer mysterious. This post was more about my personal journey than about where I’ve ended up. Inferential distance and all that.
If my initial focus is on “conventional” causes then it’s because I believe most of humanity isn’t ready to tackle existential risk, AI and transhuman issues until we can tackle the problems we’re having here and now.
Suppose your objective was, not to do good, but to make discoveries in some branch of science; biology, for example. And suppose you said
“If my initial focus is on ‘conventional’ biological research then it’s because I believe most of humanity isn’t ready to research futuristic topics X, Y, Z until we can answer the questions we are already asking in biology.”
This response would make no sense, because you don’t conduct scientific research by getting “most of humanity” to do it. Specialized research is conducted by the very small minorities who have the means, motive and opportunity to do it.
Similarly, the only reason that the readiness of most of humanity to do something would matter to you, is either if you intend to have them doing it as well, or if you intend to seek their approval before doing it.
Seeking the approval of 7 billion people for something is a formula for never doing it. And trying to get even 1% of 7 billion people to do something … that’s 70 million people. Who ever gets 70 million people to do the same thing? The state, by forcing them to do it; giant corporations, by marketing a product to them; maybe extremely influential cultural institutions, like the Catholic church; that’s about it.
Can you explain what logical relationship there is between “the degree to which one should focus on conventional causes” and “the degree to which most of humanity is ready to think about the Singularity”?
Thanks for this thoughtful reply. I’ll outline my position briefly.
The biological research example is not analogous because in biology, the necessary institutions and infrastructure already exist. In the field of effective world improvement this isn’t the case. (If you convince me that current large charities and aid organizations are near-optimal then I’ll update accordingly).
My “most of humanity” comment was misleading and I apologize for this. I merely meant that I would be seeking to reach a lot of people outside the LW & “transhumanist” communities, as I may need to reach beyond these communities in order to find people with the right skills, goals, passions, etc. An organization with a purely transhumanist focus might seem off-putting.to such outsiders.
The payoff of creating a very influential cultural institution would be very great and so could be seen as worth the low probability of success.
[EDIT: I’m not sure I can provide a meaningful answer to your question. My current plan is essentially “a bit of the conventional stuff, a bit of the transhuman stuff” and I’m prepared to drop either strand if it turns out not to be useful. That’s all.]
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that I was limiting my scope to non-trans-human world improvement. If my initial focus is on “conventional” causes then it’s because I believe most of humanity isn’t ready to tackle existential risk, AI and transhuman issues until we can tackle the problems we’re having here and now.
I was also a little misleading in suggesting that the reasons the world was so bad are somehow mysterious to me. They were, but not so much any more—I may be completely wrong but at least I see the issue as no longer mysterious. This post was more about my personal journey than about where I’ve ended up. Inferential distance and all that.
Suppose your objective was, not to do good, but to make discoveries in some branch of science; biology, for example. And suppose you said
“If my initial focus is on ‘conventional’ biological research then it’s because I believe most of humanity isn’t ready to research futuristic topics X, Y, Z until we can answer the questions we are already asking in biology.”
This response would make no sense, because you don’t conduct scientific research by getting “most of humanity” to do it. Specialized research is conducted by the very small minorities who have the means, motive and opportunity to do it.
Similarly, the only reason that the readiness of most of humanity to do something would matter to you, is either if you intend to have them doing it as well, or if you intend to seek their approval before doing it.
Seeking the approval of 7 billion people for something is a formula for never doing it. And trying to get even 1% of 7 billion people to do something … that’s 70 million people. Who ever gets 70 million people to do the same thing? The state, by forcing them to do it; giant corporations, by marketing a product to them; maybe extremely influential cultural institutions, like the Catholic church; that’s about it.
Can you explain what logical relationship there is between “the degree to which one should focus on conventional causes” and “the degree to which most of humanity is ready to think about the Singularity”?
Thanks for this thoughtful reply. I’ll outline my position briefly.
The biological research example is not analogous because in biology, the necessary institutions and infrastructure already exist. In the field of effective world improvement this isn’t the case. (If you convince me that current large charities and aid organizations are near-optimal then I’ll update accordingly).
My “most of humanity” comment was misleading and I apologize for this. I merely meant that I would be seeking to reach a lot of people outside the LW & “transhumanist” communities, as I may need to reach beyond these communities in order to find people with the right skills, goals, passions, etc. An organization with a purely transhumanist focus might seem off-putting.to such outsiders.
The payoff of creating a very influential cultural institution would be very great and so could be seen as worth the low probability of success.
[EDIT: I’m not sure I can provide a meaningful answer to your question. My current plan is essentially “a bit of the conventional stuff, a bit of the transhuman stuff” and I’m prepared to drop either strand if it turns out not to be useful. That’s all.]