Both pale relative to investment in understanding personality disorders at the level of the individual and society.
If we were to eliminate trauma and narcissism, much of the rest would fall into place. We have exploitation, despoiling, etc. because of narcissism. Because a small percentage of humans have insatiable appetites (metaphorically and actually), we cannot stop destroying.
Imagine a world where Trump, Lawrence Summers, Clinton, Putin and Netanyahu could not exist, because we had understood and prevented their underlying disorders. Imagine no more Alexander’s and Caesars, Napoleons and Musks. And especially no Thiel.
If we cured unrestricted appetite, we could actually balance the world.
Moral enhancement sounds great until you think about the non-ideal theory implications. (Who controls it and how would they exercise this power? Would the next MAGA presidency "cure" the world of woke personality disorder, i.e. leftism? Impose pliancy and suppress independent thought/rebelliousness in the name of fighting "treason"?) Seems very dangerous!
But I'd love for a morally perfect being to exercise this power, for sure. Or if combined with strong liberal norms / parental choice, I expect that it could be good:
That is definitely true. If we cured narcissism, a small cabal of narcissists would use it to eliminate the competition.
But the reality is infinite spending by wealthy people on cows won’t solve anything. The systems we are talking about are far too complex. We spent gargantuan amounts on green energy and we are drilling more than ever.
If you don’t deal with appetite you are just rearranging deck chairs.
I am not talking about controlling for belief system, just for narcissism (ok, and socio/psychopathy). It is the uncontrolled appetite and the inability to conceive of the existence or value of anything outside oneself that is the problem. Stalin and Lenin were clearly in this category, so it is not left/right, though it may have its roots in left/right brain.
It seems like it was precisely the ability to value things outside themselves that made Lenin and Stalin problems. Most of the horrible stuff they did was for the USSR, not for themselves. They believed that eventually a utopia would arise that would justify all the horror. If Stalin hadn't valued anything outside himself he would have stayed a petty criminal in Georgia instead of becoming a mass murderer.
I don’t necessarily agree, but I am also not a trained psychologist, and can’t really say whether Stalin was or was not. I think narcissists can construct a worldview that is heroic (Elon/Gates/Altman/Theil will save the world), but it is just an expression of deep trauma and dissociation with the actual world.
Healthy people are rarely messianic.
My point was the root of most of our huge problems (global warming, autocracy, human slavery, financial instability) is not “moral” but psychological, and thereby potentially treatable. Global warming is caused by both individual human action (we don’t want to give up our standard of living) and manipulation (powerful people and entities with agendas like plastics, oil, gas, and tech). We will end up dying as a species not because of cow farts, but because as individuals we are highly susceptible to addiction (curable?) and as business tycoons their maladjusted personalities are willing to capitalize on addiction (the narcissists and sociopaths).
If we were to put “manhattan project” money into understanding and breaking addiction (social media, caffeine, oil and gas, consumerism) it would be far more effective than any localized optimization. Drugs from Ozempic to Psilocybin suggest it may be possible.
Then if we could develop functional treatments for narcissism, sociopathy, bipolarity, psychopathy, and traumatic disorders, we could probably greatly reduce the malignant effect of “great men” who wreak unimaginable destruction.
Does anyone here really believe Trump, Thiel, Musk, Gates, Ellison, Welch, Holmes are healthy people psychologically? Do you really believe it is a question of morality or basic neurological/psychological disorders?
I think you have a point about how narcissists construct heroic worldviews. I might have been taking your statement that narcissists don't value things outside themselves too literally.
I definitely think that there are some people who technically value things outside themselves, but have a narcissistic way of going about it, if that makes sense. They act in a toxic way that resembles traditional narcissism, but instead of being purely about themselves, they are being narcissistic on the behalf of some abstraction like the Revolution or God. That might describe Lenin and Stalin more accurately. You can definitely view such behavior as disordered.
Cannot we state that each non-existent animal that would otherwise come to exist in virtue of not having been breed, brings an additional amount of good? Analogously to the case of cured person...
It's good in itself (or, more precisely, *avoids an intrinsic bad*) to prevent a life of suffering. But it doesn't involve *additionally* compounding or "paying it forward" over time to create even *more* good for others, whereas I expect a healthy human life (in a functional society) does involve this compounding bonus value, in addition to being good in itself.
Perhaps I am not precise... Let me illustrate: If someone refrains from killing an animal, the person avoids doing something that is intrinsically bad, which is to harm an animal/cause suffering to it. Meanwhile if by doing so, he would cease the suffering of many other additional animals, does he create even more good?
This line of argument doesn't necessarily predict well the actual reasons EAs value global health, in particular what (wholly near-termist) measures they use to evaluate global health interventions. Indeed, a risk-averse longtermist would have to align with the common criticism of EA that it devalue systemic change, environmentalism, or world-system analysis.
I'm not aiming to predict people's actual reasons. People can be wrong about stuff, or do the right thing for the wrong reasons. I'm just explaining my view of what I think people *should* conclude, based on the EA framework.
“I assume that marginal animal welfare funding mostly just serves to accelerate developments that will otherwise happen a bit later.”
Why? Is there an implicit assumption here that moral progress on animal welfare is bound (or at least likely) to happen? If so, what justifies this assumption?
Animal welfare is finally valuable. Global health is both finally and instrumentally valuable.
Mere ends-in-themselves can't compete with things that are also means (since those means are the means to benefit many more ends-in-themselves).
It's also worth considering the benefits to human health that come about from improving animal welfare. To me it seems like a win-win
- Less antibiotic resistance
- Lower the risk of a pandemic
- Decreasing meat consumption probably lowers the risk of heart disease and cancer
- Beneficial effects on the environment
Both pale relative to investment in understanding personality disorders at the level of the individual and society.
If we were to eliminate trauma and narcissism, much of the rest would fall into place. We have exploitation, despoiling, etc. because of narcissism. Because a small percentage of humans have insatiable appetites (metaphorically and actually), we cannot stop destroying.
Imagine a world where Trump, Lawrence Summers, Clinton, Putin and Netanyahu could not exist, because we had understood and prevented their underlying disorders. Imagine no more Alexander’s and Caesars, Napoleons and Musks. And especially no Thiel.
If we cured unrestricted appetite, we could actually balance the world.
Moral enhancement sounds great until you think about the non-ideal theory implications. (Who controls it and how would they exercise this power? Would the next MAGA presidency "cure" the world of woke personality disorder, i.e. leftism? Impose pliancy and suppress independent thought/rebelliousness in the name of fighting "treason"?) Seems very dangerous!
But I'd love for a morally perfect being to exercise this power, for sure. Or if combined with strong liberal norms / parental choice, I expect that it could be good:
https://www.goodthoughts.blog/p/genetic-reproductive-freedom
That is definitely true. If we cured narcissism, a small cabal of narcissists would use it to eliminate the competition.
But the reality is infinite spending by wealthy people on cows won’t solve anything. The systems we are talking about are far too complex. We spent gargantuan amounts on green energy and we are drilling more than ever.
If you don’t deal with appetite you are just rearranging deck chairs.
I am not talking about controlling for belief system, just for narcissism (ok, and socio/psychopathy). It is the uncontrolled appetite and the inability to conceive of the existence or value of anything outside oneself that is the problem. Stalin and Lenin were clearly in this category, so it is not left/right, though it may have its roots in left/right brain.
It seems like it was precisely the ability to value things outside themselves that made Lenin and Stalin problems. Most of the horrible stuff they did was for the USSR, not for themselves. They believed that eventually a utopia would arise that would justify all the horror. If Stalin hadn't valued anything outside himself he would have stayed a petty criminal in Georgia instead of becoming a mass murderer.
I don’t necessarily agree, but I am also not a trained psychologist, and can’t really say whether Stalin was or was not. I think narcissists can construct a worldview that is heroic (Elon/Gates/Altman/Theil will save the world), but it is just an expression of deep trauma and dissociation with the actual world.
Healthy people are rarely messianic.
My point was the root of most of our huge problems (global warming, autocracy, human slavery, financial instability) is not “moral” but psychological, and thereby potentially treatable. Global warming is caused by both individual human action (we don’t want to give up our standard of living) and manipulation (powerful people and entities with agendas like plastics, oil, gas, and tech). We will end up dying as a species not because of cow farts, but because as individuals we are highly susceptible to addiction (curable?) and as business tycoons their maladjusted personalities are willing to capitalize on addiction (the narcissists and sociopaths).
If we were to put “manhattan project” money into understanding and breaking addiction (social media, caffeine, oil and gas, consumerism) it would be far more effective than any localized optimization. Drugs from Ozempic to Psilocybin suggest it may be possible.
Then if we could develop functional treatments for narcissism, sociopathy, bipolarity, psychopathy, and traumatic disorders, we could probably greatly reduce the malignant effect of “great men” who wreak unimaginable destruction.
Does anyone here really believe Trump, Thiel, Musk, Gates, Ellison, Welch, Holmes are healthy people psychologically? Do you really believe it is a question of morality or basic neurological/psychological disorders?
I think you have a point about how narcissists construct heroic worldviews. I might have been taking your statement that narcissists don't value things outside themselves too literally.
I definitely think that there are some people who technically value things outside themselves, but have a narcissistic way of going about it, if that makes sense. They act in a toxic way that resembles traditional narcissism, but instead of being purely about themselves, they are being narcissistic on the behalf of some abstraction like the Revolution or God. That might describe Lenin and Stalin more accurately. You can definitely view such behavior as disordered.
Cannot we state that each non-existent animal that would otherwise come to exist in virtue of not having been breed, brings an additional amount of good? Analogously to the case of cured person...
It's good in itself (or, more precisely, *avoids an intrinsic bad*) to prevent a life of suffering. But it doesn't involve *additionally* compounding or "paying it forward" over time to create even *more* good for others, whereas I expect a healthy human life (in a functional society) does involve this compounding bonus value, in addition to being good in itself.
Perhaps I am not precise... Let me illustrate: If someone refrains from killing an animal, the person avoids doing something that is intrinsically bad, which is to harm an animal/cause suffering to it. Meanwhile if by doing so, he would cease the suffering of many other additional animals, does he create even more good?
This line of argument doesn't necessarily predict well the actual reasons EAs value global health, in particular what (wholly near-termist) measures they use to evaluate global health interventions. Indeed, a risk-averse longtermist would have to align with the common criticism of EA that it devalue systemic change, environmentalism, or world-system analysis.
I'm not aiming to predict people's actual reasons. People can be wrong about stuff, or do the right thing for the wrong reasons. I'm just explaining my view of what I think people *should* conclude, based on the EA framework.
“I assume that marginal animal welfare funding mostly just serves to accelerate developments that will otherwise happen a bit later.”
Why? Is there an implicit assumption here that moral progress on animal welfare is bound (or at least likely) to happen? If so, what justifies this assumption?
I think it'll follow from technological progress. Why torture animals if it's cheaper to make meat in a lab?