JonahSinick comments on Why I'm Skeptical About Unproven Causes (And You Should Be Too) - Less Wrong

31 Post author: peter_hurford 29 July 2013 09:09AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (102)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: JonahSinick 30 July 2013 07:16:05AM 0 points [-]

There's a much larger and more wealthy world outside that group which is strongly biased against caring about x-risk reduction

Why do you think that there's a bias against x-risk reduction in the broader world? I think that there's a pretty strong case for x-risk reduction being underprioritized from a utilitarian perspective. But I don't think that I've seen compelling evidence that it's unappealing relative to a randomly chosen cause.

Comment author: lukeprog 30 July 2013 05:57:51PM 2 points [-]

By "randomly chosen cause," do you mean something like "Randomly chosen among the charitable causes which have at least $500k devoted to them each year" or do you mean "Randomly chosen in the space of potential causes"?

Comment author: JonahSinick 31 July 2013 12:15:56AM 0 points [-]

The former.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 31 July 2013 07:27:54AM 5 points [-]

Consider the total amount sent toward the generalized cause of a randomly chosen charity with a budget of at least $500K/year. I.e., not the Local Village Center for the Blind but humanity's total efforts to help the blind. Compare MIRI and FHI.

Comment author: Rain 31 July 2013 12:57:13PM *  14 points [-]

Agreed.

Search for 'million donation' on news.google.com, first two pages:

  • Kentucky college gets record $250 million gift
  • $20-million Walton donation will boost Teach for America in LA
  • NIH applauds $30 million donation from NFL
  • Emerson College gets $2 million donation
  • Jim Pattison makes $5 million donation for Royal Jubilee Hospital
  • Eric and Wendy Schmidt donate $15 million for Governors Island park

Every time I hear a dollar amount on the news, I cringe at realizing how pathetic spending on existential risks is by comparison.

Comment author: JonahSinick 31 July 2013 10:28:02PM 7 points [-]

I agree that x-risk reduction is a lot less popular than, e.g., caring for the blind, but it doesn't follow that people are strongly biased against caring about x-risk reduction. Note that x-risk reduction is a relatively new cause (because the issues didn't become clear until relatively recently), whereas people have been caring for the blind for millennia. Under the circumstances, one would expect much more attention to go toward caring for the blind independently of whether people were biased against x-risk reduction specifically. I expect x-risk reduction to become more popular over time.