80K hours podcast on science, which I mostly disagree with, because shutting down science definitely has knock-on effects besides the loss of progress because you are also shutting down the infrastructure which requires years to set up. This is not only physical infrastructure, journals, collaboration networks, but also the pipeline of people who decide not to enter a field with an uncertain future. What I do agree with though, is how Matt describes how it’s perfectly consistent for a utilitarian to discount future generations. My pet theory that all the so-called contradictions in utilitarianism arise because the most common formulation assumes a god-like arbiter who can aggregate utility objectively across all people and time in a "fair" way. This doesn't work because god probably doesn't exist and in any case, you probably aren't a god. Instead, utilitarianism as a useful framework is a postmodern one based on your own perspective, parameters for hyperbolic discounting and loss aversion, as well as your estimates for others for the same parameters, and uncertainty around second order effects. For most people, the end result of this framework is something which resembles what Parfit describes as common-sense morality. Using this model, the key point of effective altruism isn’t that all consciousness is morally equal (altruism), but rather that your parameters may be set incorrectly: that actually other people who are not of your clan will with high probability gain significant utility from relatively small targeted interventions, even accounting for conservative estimates for losses through graft, corruption, and differences in worldviews of the receiver (effective)
Moral Mayhem podcast. I don’t have anything to say about the content of this episode per se. Actually, I feel like most of what Regan writes isn’t actually interesting content-wise, just the opinions of the silent majority, more or less. But her writing is at the same time concise and well-phrased, which makes it a joy to read. There was one conversation where I downplayed Jane Austen by saying she wrote standard Victorian romances, just written well and with style, and he told me that’s entirely the point and she is the best. Not to compare the two or anything. Anyway, if anything Regan’s verbal style is even better and the way she and Vaish play off each other is extremely entertaining and funny.
