= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Pablo_Stafforini comments on Keeping Choices Donation Neutral - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (18)
The same approach can, of course, be extended to the problem of optimally allocating leisure time. For every hour you spend doing something fun, you could instead (depending on your abilities) earn to give, do high-impact research, or do advocacy for high-impact causes. The solution to this problem is to allow yourself, in advance, as many hours of leisure as you believe are necessary and sufficient to avoid burnout and other undesirable outcomes (undesirable from the perspective of doing the most good).
That's a good way to look at it. To some extent, though, dividing your time between "stuff I find fun" and "stuff that has a positive impact on the world" may be counterproductive; you can often find ways to spend your time that are equally fun and have some overall positive effect. Could be anything from playing Foldit instead of playing normal video games, to writing open-source software in your free time if you find that fun, to reading interesting nonfiction.
Doesn't mean that those are an optimal way to spend your time in order to do good, but if you can replace some of your 'leisure to avoid burnout' with 'leisure to avoid burnout and do good' without negative consequences, then that seems useful.