I read this quote today, and it resonated:

"The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn. - David Barbary, Methodist pastor

It certainly rings true for white American evangelicals, but it quickly occurred to me it applies pretty well to longtermists too. Centering the well-being of far-future simulated super-humans repulses me, but it seems very compelling to the majority of the EA cult.

  • @Collectivist
    link
    English
    24 months ago

    the data presented on that page is incredibly noisy

    Yes, that’s why I said it’s “less comprehensive” and why I first gave the better 2019 source which also points in the same direction. If there is a better source, or really any source, for the majority claim I would be interested in seeing it.

    Speaking of which,

    AI charities (which is not equivalent to simulated humans, because it also includes climate change, nearterm AI problems, pandemics etc)

    AI is to climate change as indoor smoking is to fire safety, nearterm AI problems is an incredibly vague and broad category and I would need someone to explain to me why they believe AI has anything to do with pandemics. Any answer I can think of would reflect poorly on the one holding such belief.

    You misread, it’s 18.2% for long term and AI charities [emphasis added]

    • David GerardMA
      link
      English
      74 months ago

      18.2% is not a majority, but it’s 18.2% higher than it would be in a movement that didn’t have a serious fucking problem

      • @Collectivist
        link
        English
        0
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        The way this is categorized, this 18.2% is also about things like climate change and pandemics.

        • @mountainriver
          link
          English
          44 months ago

          What benefits did the Longtermist stuff on pandemics do in the actual pandemic?

          If, as I suspect, it was of no benefit, it belongs in the same pile as hindering the acasualrobotgod.

          • @Collectivist
            link
            English
            14 months ago

            I don’t know, when I googled it this 80000 hours article is one of the first results. It seems reasonable at first glance but I haven’t looked into it.