= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
So8res comments on On Caring - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (272)
I agree with others that the post is very nice and clear, as most of your posts are. Upvoted for that. I just want to provide a perspective not often voiced here. My mind does not work the way yours does and I do not think I am a worse person than you because of that. I am not sure how common my thought process is on this forum.
Going section by section:
I do not "care about every single individual on this planet". I care about myself, my family, friends and some other people I know. I cannot bring myself to care (and I don't really want to) about a random person half-way around the world, except in the non-scalable general sense that "it is sad that bad stuff happens, be it to 1 person or to 1 billion people". I care about the humanity surviving and thriving, in the abstract, but I do not feel the connection between the current suffering and future thriving. (Actually, it's worse than that. I am not sure whether humanity existing, in Yvain's words, in a 10m x 10m x 10m box of computronium with billions of sims is much different from actually colonizing the observable universe (or the multiverse, as the case might be). But that's a different story, unrelated to the main point.)
No disagreement there, the stakes are high, though I would not say that a thriving community of 1000 is necessarily worse than a thriving community of 1 googoleplex, as long as their probability of long-term survival and thriving is the same.
I occasionally donate modest amounts to this cause or that, if I feel like it. I don't think I do what Alice, Bob or Christine did, and donate out of pressure or guilt.
I spend (or used to spend) a lot of time helping out strangers online with their math and physics questions. I find it more satisfying than caring for oiled birds or stray dogs. Like Daniel, I see the mountain ridges of bad education all around, of which the students asking for help on IRC are just tiny pebbles. Unlike Daniel, I do not feel that I "can't possibly do enough". I help people when I feel like it and I don't pretend that I am a better person because of it, even if they thank me profusely after finally understanding how free-body diagram works. I do wish someone more capable worked on improving the education system to work better than at 1% efficiency, and I have seen isolated cases of it, but I do not feel that it is my problem to deal with. Wrong skillset.
I have read a fair amount of EA propaganda, and I still do not feel that I "should care about people suffering far away", sorry. (Not really sorry, no.) It would be nice if fewer people died and suffered, sure. But "nice" is all it is. Call me heartless. I am happy that other people care, in case I am in the situation where I need their help. I am also happy that some people give money to those who care, for the same reason. I might even chip in, if it hits close to home.
I do not feel that I would be a better person if I donated more money or dedicated my life to solving one of the "biggest problems", as opposed to doing what I am good at, though I am happy that some people feel that way; humanity's strength is in its diversity.
Again, one of the main strengths of humankind is its diversity, and the Bell-curve outliers like "Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela" tend to have more effect than those of us within 1 standard deviation. Some people address "global poverty", others write poems, prove theorems, shoot the targets they are told to, or convince other people to do what they feel is right. No one knows which of these is more likely to result in the long-term prosperity of the human race. So it is best to diversify and hope that one of these outliers does not end up killing all of us, intentionally or accidentally.
I don't feel the weight of the world. Because it does not weigh on me.
Note: having reread what I wrote, I suspect that some people might find it kind of Objectivist. I actually tried reading Atlas Shrugged and quit after 100 pages or so, getting extremely annoyed by the author belaboring an obvious and trivial point over and over. So I only have a vague idea what the movement is all about. And I have no interest in finding out more, given that people who find this kind of writing insightful are not ones I want to associate with.
I don't disagree, and I don't think you're a bad person, and my intent is not to guilt or pressure you. My intent is more to show some people that certain things that may feel impossible are not impossible. :-)
A few things, though:
This seems like a cop out to me. Given a bunch of people trying to help the world, it would be best for all of them to do the thing that they think most helps the world. Often, this will lead to diversity (not just because people have different ideas about what is good, but also because of diminishing marginal returns and saturation). Sometimes, it won't (e.g. after a syn bio proof of concept that kills 1/4 of the race I would hope that diversity in problem-selection would decrease). "It is best to diversify and hope" seems like a platitude that dodges the fun parts.
I also have this feeling, in a sense. I interpret it very differently, and I am aware of the typical mind fallacy, but I also caution against the "you must be Fundamentally Different" fallacy. Part of the theme behind this post is "you can interpret the internal caring feelings differently if you want", and while I interpret my care-senses differently, I do empathize with this sentiment.
That's not to say that you should come around to my viewpoint, by any means. But if you (or others) would like to try, for one reason or another, consider the following points:
In my case, much of my decision to care about the rest of the world is due to an adjustment upwards of the importance of other people (after noticing that I tend to care significantly about people after I have gotten to know them very well, and deciding that people don't matter less just because I'm not yet close to them). There's also a significant portion of my caring that comes from caring about others because I would want others to care about me if the positions were reversed, and this seeming like the right action in a timeless sense.
Finally, much of my caring comes from treating all of humanity as my in-group (everyone is a close friend, I just don't know most of them yet; see also the expanding circle).
I mess with my brother sometimes, but anyone else who tries to mess with my brother has to go through me first. Similarly there is some sense in which I don't "care" about most of the nameless masses who are out of my sight (in that I don't have feelings for them), but there's a fashion in which I do care about them, in that anyone who fucks with humans fucks with me.
Disease, war, and death are all messing with my people, and while I may not be strong enough to do anything about it today, there will come a time.
There may be a group of people, such that it is possible for any one individual of the group to become my close friend, but where it is not possible for all the individuals to become my close friends simultaneously.
In that case, saying "any individual could become a close friend, so I should multiply 'caring for one friend' by the the number of individuals in the group" is wrong. Instead, I should multiply "caring for one friend' by the number of individuals in the group who can become my friend simultaneously, and not take into account the individuals in excess of that. In fact, even that may be too strong. It may be possible for one individual in the group to become my close friend only at the cost of reducing the closeness to my existing friends, in which case I should conclude that the total amount I care shouldn't increase at all.
The point is that the fact that someone happens to be your close friend seems like the wrong reason to care about them.
Let's say, for example, that:
1. If X was my close friend, I would care about X
2. If Y was my close friend, I would care about Y
3. X and Y could not both be close friends of mine simultaneously.
Why should whether I care for X or care for Y depend on which one I happen to end up being close friends with? Rather, why shouldn't I just care about both X and Y regardless of whether they are my close friends or not?
Why do you think so? It seems to me the fact that someone is my close friend is an excellent reason to care about her.
I think it depends on what you mean by "care".
If you mean "devote time and effort to", sure; I completely agree that it makes a lot of sense to do this for your friends, and you can't do that for everyone.
If you mean "value as a human being and desire their well-being", then I think it's not justifiable to afford special privilege in this regard to close friends.
By "care" I mean allocating a considerably higher value to his particular human compared to a random one.
Yes, I understand you do, but why do you think so?
I don't think the worth of a human being should be decided upon almost entirely circumstantial grounds, namely their proximity and/or relation to myself. If anything it should be a function of the qualities or the nature of that person, or perhaps even blanket equality.
If I believe that my friends are more valuable, it should be because of the qualities that led to them being my friend rather than simply the fact that they are my friends. However, if that's so then there are many, many other people in the world who have similar qualities but are not my friends.
I assume you would pay your own mortgage. Would you mind paying my mortgage as well?
I can't pay everyone's mortgage, and nor can anyone else, so different people will need to pay for different mortgages.
Which approach works better, me paying my mortgage and you paying yours, or me paying your mortgage and you paying mine?
Ah. It seems we have been talking about somewhat different things.
You are talking about the worth of a human being. I'm talking about my personal perception of the value of a human being under the assumption that other people can and usually do have different perceptions of the same value.
I try not to pass judgement of the worth of humans, but I am quite content with assigning my personal values to people based, in part, on "their proximity and/or relation to myself".
I'm not entirely sure what a "personal perception of the value of a human being" is, as distinct from the value or worth of a human being. Surely the latter is what the former is about?
Granted, I guess you could simply be talking about their instrumental value to yourself (e.g. "they make me happy"), but I don't think that's really the main thrust of what "caring" is.
Perhaps I have a limited amount of caring available and I am only able to care for a certain number of people. If I tried to care for both X and Y I would go over my limit and would have to reduce the amount of caring for other people to make up for it. In fact, "only X or Y could be my close friend, but not both" may be an effect of that.
It's not "they're my close friend, and that's the reason to care about them", it's "they're under my caring limit, and that allows me to care about them". "Is my close friend" is just another way to express "this person happened, by chance, to be added while I was still under my limit". There is nothing special about this person, compared to the pool of all possible close friends, except that this person happened to have been added at the right time (or under randomly advantageous circumstances that don't affect their merit as a person, such as living closer to you).
Of course, this sounds bad because of platitudes we like to say but never really mean. We like to say that our friends are special. They aren't; if you had lived somewhere else or had different random experiences, you'd have had different close friends.
I think I would state a similar claim in a very different way. Friends are allies; both of us have implicitly agreed to reserve resources for the use of the other person in the friendship. (Resources are often as simple as 'time devoted to a common activity' or 'emotional availability.') Potential friends and friends might be indistinguishable to an outside observer, but to me (or them) there's an obvious difference in that a friend can expect to ask me for something and get it, and a potential friend can't.
(Friendships in this view don't have to be symmetric- there are people that I'd listen to them complain that I don't expect they'd listen to me complain, and the reverse exists as well.)
I think that it's reasonable to call facts 'special' relative to counterfacts- yes, I would have had different college friends if I had gone to a different college, but I did actually go to the college I went to, and actually did make the friends I did there.
That's a solid point, and to a significant extent I agree.
There are quite a lot of things that people can spend these kinds of resources on that are very effective at a small scale. This is an entirely sufficient basis to justify the idea of friends, or indeed "allies", which is a more accurate term in this context. A network of local interconnections of such friends/allies who devote time and effort to one another is quite simply a highly efficient way to improve overall human well-being.
This also leads to a very simple, unbiased moral justification for devoting resources to your close friends; it's simply that you, more so than other people, are in a unique position to affect the well-being of your friends, and vice versa. That kind of argument is also an entirely sufficient basis for some amount of "selfishness"--ceteris paribus, you yourself are in a better position to improve your own well-being than anyone else is.
However, this is not the same thing as "caring" in the sense So8res is using the term; I think he's using the term more in the sense of "value". For the above reasons, you can value your friends equally to anyone else while still devoting more time and effort to them. In general, you're going to be better able to help your close friends than you are a random stranger on the street.
The way you put it, it seems like you want to care for both X and Y but are unable to.
However, if that's the case then So8res's point carries, because the core argument in the post translates to "if you think you ought to care about both X and Y but find yourself unable to, then you can still try to act the way that you would if you did, in fact, care about both X and Y".
"I want to care for an arbitrarily chosen person from the set of X and Y" is not "I want to care for X and Y". It's "I want to care for X or Y".