Survey completed, besides the digit ratio.
banx
Karma: 135
My temporary solution is to max out my employer’s annual match. That the maximum match is somewhere between 10 and 15 percent of my income is very convenient, as that makes me feel like I’m contributing the “expected” amount for an EA (this feeling is only important for fuzzies) but still leaves me with what seems to be a good amount to save and spend. It also allows me to avoid committing an answer to the question of whether to donate now or invest and donate later. The guaranteed, almost-immediate, soon-to-expire 100% return provided by the match wins pretty clearly over the EV of investing and donating later, and since I feel like I’m donating enough for now, I can evaluate what to do with what’s being invested later on, based on my wants and needs.
So you’re claiming that there is no way in which the US police and justice systems treat black people differently that isn’t reducible to intelligence or conscientiousness differences?
I just meant that working might be an opportunity to better accomplish some goal you deem ethically relevant (e.g., by earning money and donating it or by developing FAI or the cure for some disease). I’m not arguing that it is. That depends on what the goals are and what your opportunities (both “work” and “leisure” using your definitions) are.
It’s less ethical if you think that you can get more resources by working, and that those resources can be used to create an ethically superior world.
Has this been demonstrated for home environments in the developing world or sub-middle class home environments in the developed world? My prior understanding was that it had not been.
Keep in mind that there is a nice theory about not being able to lie in parseltongue.
This line reminded me that Quirrel’s frequent transitions from man to snake and back seemed odd to me when I was reading. I went back to see if any of what he said after transitioning back to a man was a good candidate for a direct lie that he couldn’t tell as a snake. But I didn’t find anything. Most of what he said was phrased as speculation, rather than direct statements.
I don’t have a full answer to the question, but if you do feed the dog meat, one starting point would be to prefer meat that has less suffering associated with it. It is typically claimed that beef has less suffering per unit mass associated with it than pork and much less than chicken, simply because you get a lot more from one individual. The counterargument would be to claim that cows > pigs > chickens in intelligence/complexity to a great enough extent to outweigh this consideration.
I’m curious: are there specific reasons to believe that dogs need meat while humans (also omnivores) do not? A quick Google search finds lots of vegetarians happy to proclaim that dogs can be vegetarian too, but I haven’t looked into details.
Is it always correct to choose that action with the highest expected utility?
Suppose I have a choice between action A, which grants −100 utilons with 99.9% chance and +1000000 utilons with 0.1% chance, or action B which grants +1 utilon with 100% chance. A has an expected utility of +900.1 utilons, while B has an expected utility of +1 utilon. This decision will be available to me only once, and all future decision will involve utility changes on the order of a few utilons.
Intuitively, it seems like action A is too risky. I’ll almost certainly end up with a huge decrease in utility, just because there’s a remote chance of a windfall. Risk aversion doesn’t apply here, since we’re dealing in utility, right? So either I’m failing to truly appreciate the chance at getting 1M utilons—I’m stuck thinking about it as I would money—or this is a case where there’s reason to not take the action that maximizes expected value. Help?
EDIT: Changed the details of action A to what was intended
It doesn’t avoid the problem if people want to vote with a percentage < 1%, and try to do so with a 0-100 value (e.g., .5 meaning .5% rather than 50%).
Here’s Optimal Employment, where the working in Australia idea is discussed, and here’s the Optimal Employment Open Thread.
Isn’t it the case that most investment opportunities have essentially the same expected returns, due to market efficiency? In that case you want to diversify, since you can lower the variance without lowering the expected return. But if you can identify a single giving opportunity that has a significantly higher expected return than the alternatives, then it seems like you’d want to concentrate on that one opportunity.