Stubborn Attachments by @tylercowen IS OUT(!) This book finally knocked loose, with minimal pain, an ever-wiggling concern that Effective Altruism may only be part of the grand human story (though a critical one). smile.amazon.com/Stubborn-Attac…
EA is essentially about redistribution. It's very easy to find oneself (& everyone around) falling into well-worn political grooves at the mention of that word, often coalescing in a pit fight between that & The Economy, with "fairness" the conceptual gun nobody can keep hold of
Attachments argues that much of our "selfish" behavior contributes to economic growth & pro-growth norms, which ultimately make us better off in aggregate. But wise redistribution also does this, & insofar as we can make the world a greater cornucopia by moving money, we should!
IMO, you can read out of this a very nice personal philosophy — one where you try to live a productive life, contributing ideas & labor as you can, & giving to others who are trying to do the same but whose circumstances make an additional dollar more useful to them than to you.
It's hard to pin it down exactly, but... Attachments is really not about limiting your sense of obligation to others, but to widening the scope of that obligation (to, for example, people living many hundreds of years from now) & serving that obligation through high productivity.
It’s difficult to appreciate the value of human lives which won’t be lived for many hundreds of years. Likewise, the value of lives already lived — lived without the gifts of growth even many of the poor among us can access: clean running water, heating/lighting, refrigeration
Yes... this is a repeating theme for me, strangely converging across a few recent rabbit holes. What makes the world richer? Why does wealth compound? Ideas, which can be forgotten but not consumed away. When you get a good one, you usually get to keep it!
IMO, the moral isn't to grind yourself down either for the poorest (a potential failure mode for EAs) or for all civilization (a potential failure mode for the reader, perhaps). Maybe it's "find the awe in a *grand human tradition* & try to find your place in furthering it."
You could do worse than to spend your entire life in pursuit of good ideas to serve, either by promoting/spreading them OR by extending/revising them OR by executing on them. There are many paths to the thinker priesthood, and it needs you
Getting *really* tangential now, the book + this interview with @tylercowen & @robertwiblin convinced me today to make a real go at quitting alcohol. (Today, coincidentally, marks 6 weeks without nicotine!) 80000hours.org/podcast/episod…
With regard to the second tweet in this thread, @juliagalef and @robertwiblin disagree with my claim that EA is "essentially about" redistribution. I suspect most EAs do consider redistribution essential to EA's philosophical core, but I leave it to you
Twitter’s moderation game is unreal. If there’s no remotely plausible TOS violation, simply append a “misleading” label (no elaboration necessary) and disable all engagement aside from quote-retweets
I enjoy getting into the weeds re: how misleading this actually is, but frankly I also think it’s fucking important that people are allowed to say things on social media that social media staffers consider misleading
The lab leak hypothesis was a completely baseless conspiracy theory until suddenly it wasn’t, because it turns out that immediate consensus-generation can be completely fucking wrong
I’m struggling to understand how the entire medical & media infrastructure can be so invested in a novel drug with the potentially catastrophic risk profile of molnupiravir when there’s a standard FDA-approved SSRI that performed just as well in a widely lauded large-scale RCT
Molnupiravir caused such significant harm to fetuses in animal models that Merck has suggested ensuring contraceptive use during *and* after treatment, actively generates mutations that could theoretically lead to new variants & has a mechanism of action that may cause cancer
Fluvoxamine is a pretty standard SSRI with a standard SSRI risk profile that’s been FDA-approved to treat depression, OCD and anxiety disorders for nearly 15 years. Both appear to reduce hospitalizations by roughly 30% in rigorous clinical trials.
The media has gone absolutely schizophrenic on omicron, just totally unable to draw a coherent narrative or practice any patience where it’s owed — and even the most forgiving portion of its audience seems to be tired of getting pulled through the panic/blame shredder
A key phrase I’m seeing a lot is “giving ammo to the anti-vaxxers,” which IMO can reasonably be parsed as a frustrated expression of that which cannot be stated plainly: the people committed to following institutional advice are tired of being kept in a coercive state of panic
There continue to be really encouraging signals re: omicron, still room for concern (for example, how will regions compromised by recent delta waves fare?) but the bottom line is that people seem ready to return to a state of affairs where their medical decisions belong to them
Omicron is spreading fast, but no confirmed deaths globally so far. Depending on how long it’s been spreading, that could be a *really* good sign google.com/amp/s/www.alja…
From the beginning we’ve seen COVID hospitalizations lag behind cases and deaths lag behind hospitalizations, so I’m cautiously optimistic, but so far everything still looks like a potential best case scenario
They don’t tell you this, but (non-abusive) fighting and rough patches in the context of a committed relationship where neither person is afraid that the other person is going to reject them or leave are SO much better than the serial monogamy dating roller coaster
Looking back I don’t know how anyone gets anything done when they’re spending their 20s and 30s with zero relationship security. Some people are probably wired to tolerate this better than others, but geez, it just consumes so much human compute
I’m pretty convinced that individual personality factors and attachment dynamics are only part of the story, and people just fight and recover differently when they know they’re not going to leave and neither will their partner. The “win” condition is just unavoidably different
I usually argue a bit with Aella on this stuff, but honestly in a culture with low expected commitment norms she’s right that monogamous defaults basically just lead to serial breakups to trade up or enjoy the perks of novelty
Hesitantly accepting a polyamorous lifestyle so your partner doesn’t “have to” leave you when he or she wants to cheat doesn’t seem like such a big win to me though
And frankly, having a menagerie of partners to meet all current and future “needs” inevitably trades off against the kind of investment that makes two-adult households so useful and inevitably causes instability, since no one can promise those sorts of needs won’t change