I agree with this but separately the whole notion of what one might think on their deathbed is overrated (it's partially a metaphor but still). You can reflect on your life so far at any time and it's unlikely that your clearest thoughts on the matter will come on your deathbed...
1My intuition is that:
- The average person undervalues trying to find more rewarding/impactful/interesting work, making the mistake you describe in the post
- The average LessWrong reader undervalues investing in family, i.e. they think too much about how to have an impactful career and too little about how to have a successful family
21I understand the deathbed scenario as a warning against procrastination -- the kind where you actually may work a lot, it's just that you keep postponing the important things, with the vague idea that you will get to that "later".
The deathbed scenario is giving you the perspective when there is no "later" and your life ended up just doing the usual stuff. If you do not endorse such outcome, then you need to figure out how to include some of those important things in your life now rather than unspecified "later". Otherwise, there is a risk that the perspective may actually be a correct prediction of your life.
I could totally see myself looking back and being like “I didn’t get to do enough math and I wasn’t good enough at it.”
I think this post being on LW calls for remembering the law of equal and opposite advice.
A good, concise one, still! Upvoted.
I interpret the quote as motivating us to find ways to need our work less - to find ways to obtain abundant satisfaction from other sources, such as our families.
One of the flaws of the EA movement, one that turns many people off and makes it seem like a “cult,” is that it is founded on promoting neediness of participants for personal validation of their life worth through their job. EA works to restrict the number of jobs capable of providing that validation, and to undermine any attempt to establish a sense that one’s job is good enough.
EA works to restrict the number of jobs capable of providing that validation, and to undermine any attempt to establish a sense that one’s job is good enough
I don't think so? Pledging 10% and earning to give in general have been common in EA from the beginning. There was a bit in 2018-2022 when this approach to impact was emphasized less, but that reversed with the post-FTX need for more funding diversity. And this is a widely accessible path to impact.
I appreciate that this post states clearly what I've certainly thought of in a foggier sense. The oft-repeated platitude quoted by OP is quite black-and-white in how it frames the tension between economic activity and social activity, but it fails to capture a sentiment that I (anecdotally) encounter fairly regularly - people who would rather work long into the sunset of their lives because of the meaning they derive from it.
The value of meaningful work for the person doing it, aside from its economic value, doesn't get its fair consideration in this Cached Thought.
I recently read a blog post that concluded with:
Setting aside that some people don't have the economic breathing room to make this kind of tradeoff, what jumps out at me is the implication that you're not working on something important that you'll endorse in retrospect. I don't think the author is envisioning directly valuable work (reducing risk from international conflict, pandemics, or AI-supported totalitarianism; improving humanity's treatment of animals; fighting global poverty) or the undervalued less direct approach of earning money and donating it to enable others to work on pressing problems.
Definitely spend time with your friends, family, and those you love. Don't work to the exclusion of everything else that matters in your life. But if your tens of thousands of hours at work aren't something you expect to look back on with pride, consider whether there's something else you could be doing professionally that you could feel good about.