An exchange re: advocacy & animals (4th most popular post of 2024)

November 25, 2024 (thought this one would be higher)

“Veganuary started in the UK in 2014, and I noted the production of broilers per person in the UK in January increased 4.27 times as fast from 2014 to 2024 as from 1994 to 2013.” 

Relevant portions of the full exchange. A message to One Step:

I am currently doing a research fellowship ....

We are currently evaluating the promise of a new organisation running Veganuary campaigns. However, I suspect one explicitly focussed on decreasing the consumption of poultry birds may be more cost-effective. Do you know the cost-effectiveness of One Step for Animals in terms of kg of chicken consumption reduced per $?

From our reply:

Tl;dr: One Step’s “About” page is the most important bit I have to offer.

I’ve worked for and with quite a few animal advocacy organizations in the past 35 years. (I’ve also been on the evaluative side at VegFund.) Having seen (and written) answers these groups have given to questions like yours (e.g., “Our surveys show 5 animals saved for every $100!”) and their budgets, factory farming should have ended and everyone should now be vegan. I’m not casting aspersions; as mentioned here, I did these projections back in the 90s. 

Yet as you know, the average person in the US and globally is eating as many factory-farmed animals as ever before. There is vastly more suffering on factory farms today than 10, 20, 30 years ago. Despite all the claims over the course of decades, the world has never been worse for non-human animals.

Also over the past 35 years, I have read arguments why “Our advocacy is different this time.” But the facts above should leave us more than skeptical about any claims of any “reduction per $.” 

For details on why there is more suffering despite decades of advocacy, please see Meat Reduction Hurts Animals and Good-Faith Advocacy Can Cause More Suffering.

When starting One Step for Animals, our number one priority was to avoid advocacy that, on net, actually causes more suffering. Making sure our advocacy was not causing more suffering was the focus of our previous survey. But of course, we can’t really trust those survey results, given response bias and the fact that any meaningful measure would have to be done over a significant amount of time.

Based on our experience and the lessons we have learned over the past 35 years, not causing harm on net is the only honest claim demand-side advocacy can make. (Welfare reforms like cage-free campaigns are different, but even there, history has shown many “victories” that didn’t actually translate to fewer animals in cages. Work on the supply-side – i.e., plant-based and cultivated animal products – has also not come close to fulfilling the projections and promises.) 

I would be happy to discuss any aspect of this with you further. But One Step won’t make any claims other than “do no harm.” Claims of efficacy simply do not match with reality. Even if not consciously dishonest, these claims are misleading to the point of being actively harmful to animals.

The person I trust most regarding animal suffering is Lewis Bollard at Open Philanthropy Project. He and I don’t agree on everything, but he is not trying to sell a certain story, promote his group or philosophy, or solicit support. He takes suffering very seriously. In addition to being extremely scrupulous and rigorous in evaluations, he constantly monitors himself for self-delusion.

From their reply:

I agree [more suffering despite advocacy] is a concern. Veganuary started in the UK in 2014, and I noted the production of broilers per person in the UK in January increased 4.27 times as fast from 2014 to 2024 as from 1994 to 2013.

 

Follow-up

Learn more about how you can help animals efficiently 

If you would like to support work driven by these facts, please click here.
Note: Open Philanthropy is not a supporter of One Step, but Lewis is. 👍

Come Sail Away

This is an amazing song, musically and the punch line of the lyrics.  

30 years after that video was recorded, they released an album about a mission to Mars!

Politics Creeps In

Was listening to a podcast about human progress, and someone defended the "let's piss off the public" antics of "Extinction Rebellion," I couldn't help but remember this from p. 450 here:

But if your first, second, and third priorities aren’t winning elections, then you are wasting your time.

If looking for a silver lining in the failures of last November, you might like this from The Breakthrough Institute: Nominee Chris Wright Offers Much-Needed Reset on Climate Politics

OTOH (and obviously this is just one of dozens of examples), I have to say "Bravo" to all the Climate Doomers and other Lefties who spent their time pissing people off instead of working to actually, you know, win:

[H]e's directing kind of the whole of his government, the the agencies, you know, energy energy department, interior department, the environmental regulators, to kind of come up with ways that they can accelerate the build out of largely fossil fuel energy and energy sources and energy processing. So that's pipelines, refineries, new oil and gas projects, and stuff like that. He's really trying to try to put the whole weight of government behind this kind of energy expansion based on fossil fuels.

(Another example of environmentalists screwing everyone by making the perfect the enemy of the better.)

And as always, thanks to the Green Party for giving us oilman George W Bush over Al Gore. And then, seeing their "success" in 2000, they gave us The Orange Guy in 2016. It also snuck into my knowledge that the Green Party cost our local Democrat the House seat this past November. 

Clap. Clap. Clap.

"Up is Down, Red is Green, Love is Hate." We are doing it to ourselves. (Not quite the 5th most popular post of 2024)

January 16, 2024

For many decades, blogger and journalist Kevin Drum has sought out data to counter the latest feeling- and anecdote-driven narrative. Many of his readers are pretty thoughtful, but now, like much of the internet, the comment section is often overwhelmed with misinformation based on anger and despair.

Recently, Kevin had a series of posts based on actual data that met with sadly predictable negative reactions. For example:

Unemployment is the lowest it has been in most people’s lifetime. 

They’re all shit jobs! 

(Republicans: Inflation is high because workers are too greedy.)

Even adjusted for inflation, wages are up.

We’ll never own a home!  

Last year was great for the economy.

Cage free laws are making eggs even more expensive! 

(That is not a joke – a real comment.)

We live in the richest country ever.

Climate change (robots / disease) will kill us all!

I tried to figure out what news, if actually true, might possibly be seen as unequivocally good. But then I could hear the nattering nabobs of negativity responding:

Last year, more people found true love than ever before.

Love is the opiate of the masses! 

How can anyone love when the world is going to hell?

Then, a few hours after I ran that thought experiment, I came across this in John Green’s The Anthropocene Reviewed:

I can't find a point of falling in love, which is just a desperate attempt to stave off the loneliness that you can never truly solve for, because you are always alone.

John wrote that as an example of his thinking when suffering from severe clinical depression. 

That is what we’ve become.

I honestly believe those of us very online – liberals and conservatives alike – are driving ourselves mad with negativity and fear. [Not me anymore.] The world is far from perfect, but human life is, on average, better than ever, especially for someone who has the time and resources to be online quite a bit. 

More Drum:

There's always something. But here in the real world, GDP is up, employment is strong, wages are up, inflation is over, the abortion rate is down, teen pregnancy is down, crime is down, cigarette smoking is down, racism is down, teen bullying is down, the divorce rate is down, education is in good shape, homeownership is higher than in the 1980s, US universities are the best in the world, America owns the global software market, the US military is by far the world's strongest, and American workers are among the best paid in the world.

Please:

1. Be aware of this negativity bias.
2. Don’t feed the Doom Beast.
   
   

"The world is bad. The world was much worse. The world can be much better." 

But we have to actually want to make it better and work to make it better. 

Constant complaints don't make things better. They make things worse. 

We can each make a stand for positive facts and hopeful reality, and by doing so make the world better. Otherwise, the negativity will become even more entrenched and a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

More, including a modification to the maternal mortality section of TBTSNBN, as well as a graphical representation of the increasing negativity in the news, plus actual data about housing expenses. See here for an actual good comment section (and a focus on Winning Elections [ruh-roh]).

Please feel free to share this. 

Weekend Reading for Investors (and a link for everyone)

This shows just how impossible it is to "beat the market." The two main charts:

The past decade.

First decade of this century. Note that Large Caps, the best performing in the last decade, were down nearly 10% in 2000, nearly 12% in 2001, and down over 20% in 2002!

Can't get enough? Here is why you should just buy an index fund.

Taking Armageddon Seriously (kicking off the Best of 2024)

If you find this interesting, please share it. TY.

Try to imagine the unimaginable. You wake up tomorrow and the electrical grid is not down, but entirely gone. You have no running water. Your shelter is rickety. Your bank accounts have been emptied. You have no access to medical services. Your children can't go to school. Your life expectancy has plummeted. 

You would have to think the Apocolypse has come for you. You would be right.

This is reality for many people today, right now.

Over 700 million people (twice the entire population of the United States) live in extreme poverty. Half of the global population (billions of people) lives on less than US$6.85 per person per day.

If we care about anything*, this has to be it. 

And please don't tell me that your pet cause is more important because it will impact the world's poor in the future. They are already impacted.

It is not moral or logical to scream for policies that would harm the global poor because you care about the future poor. 
 

Please keep in mind: things were much worse in the past. Rational, practical people working diligently have made incredible progress on lifting people from poverty:

We accomplished this without smashing capitalism or abolishing fossil fuels or undoing globalization. Indeed - without capitalism and oil and globalization, that curve would be much worse. There would be much more suffering.

It is fully possible to make more progress if we actually choose to make progress, rather than actively desiring to impoverish billions.  

Don't be swayed by the Doom Cult. Be a part of the solution. Focus on what we can do to help.

* As discussed many places (including the conclusion of "Biting the Philosophical Bullet" from Losing) my focus is on chickens. (That's not going so great.) But humans care most about those closest to them, which, in addition to the reasons I lay out in "Biting," is why I say if there is just one thing to have someone care about, it would be acute human suffering. 

Of course, no one should cause active suffering, even if they don't care about chickens or humans.

Bonus repeat: Lincoln and Enlightenment (June 2023: Emptiness and Freedom, part 2 of 3)

Pre-script: Tonight is the 4th anniversary of the worst few seconds to ever happen to my family*. On the bright side, I have not been taken to the emergency room since that night - the longest ER-free stretch since I met Anne.

*I say family because the whole thing was really bad for both Anne and EK. 😢 

And also regarding terrible events: a reminder that I'm ignoring all political news. It remains hard, and I still miss Colbert. TY.

After receiving yesterday's blog, a friend asked, "What do you think it would take for you to have 'malice toward none and charity toward all?'" I half-jokingly sent this link as my flippant reply. But the below, which is part 2 of 3, is my actual answer. I'm working on it.

Part 1  |  Part 3 

In Why Buddhism Is True, Robert Wright quotes a teacher saying that you shouldn’t try to intellectually understand the Buddhist concept of emptiness, because if you make the attempt, your head would explode.

I disagree.

Recognizing Our Simplicity

We humans have proven ourselves capable of incredible illusions. From believing in god speaking to us and transubstantiation to suffering the delusion that we are living in the end times and the Dunning-Kruger effect, our brains do not see the world clearly. We can’t even comprehend how bad it is. (Doubt that?)

Although we can’t be sure we aren’t living in a simulation, all testable evidence indicates that the universe is simply matter and energy following (a certain set of) the laws of physics. (“A certain set of” because there could be other universes where the laws are different.)

We don’t understand how the chemical interactions of our brain’s ~1.4 x 10^26 atoms give rise to conscious, subjective experience. But we do know that we can manipulate consciousness in specific ways by manipulating the brain’s atoms' interactions. This gives every reason to believe that consciousness is an emergent property of specific arrangements of matter and energy, but still subject to the laws of physics (and the emergent rules of chemistry, biology, physiology). 

Everything we think, everything we feel, everything we do – all of it is, at the core, the interactions of atoms. Nothing more.

Recognizing this undermines the illusion of free will. But this insight isn’t (entirely) a loss, just as it isn’t (entirely) a loss to give up religion, or to understand the evolutionary basis of love, sex, and reproduction. Realizing the materialist, reductionist nature of the universe is yet another gain – a clearer understanding of reality. And that better understanding can help us lead a better life.

The First Gain: Freedom (of a sort)

The first insight is into ourselves. Since everything is chemical reactions, we can’t be the driver of our thoughts and feelings. Consciousness is along for the ride. Our bodies feel emotions – hunger, fear, desire – as a way to understand the world and motivate “appropriate” behavior. Many things are going on in our body / brain to keep us alive; consciousness shines the spotlight of attention on one part of our otherwise unconscious thoughts and feelings to allow us to “think” more on that topic. We don’t “choose” what to think about.

This is the great insight from mindfulness meditation – recognizing that our minds don’t actually work the way we assume they do. Thoughts think themselves.

But we don’t have to be the feeling or the thought. Once we realize thoughts think themselves and feelings are messages, we don’t have to identify with them if we don’t want to. That is: these insights and mindfulness can reprogram our brains to recognize thoughts and feelings for what they are. Thoughts and feelings are not who we are.

More concretely: we don’t have to be “angry.” We don’t have to "be" anything.

Anger can arise, we can recognize it, and then “choose” to let it go. "I recognize I am experiencing anger" vs "I am angry."

Conversely, we can recognize good fortune, experience gratitude, and “choose” to embrace the experience of that feeling.

As Sam Harris notes:

“Losing a belief in free will has not made me a fatalist – in fact, it has increased my feelings of freedom. My hopes, fears, and neuroses seem less personal and indelible. … Becoming sensitive to the background causes of one’s thoughts and feelings can paradoxically allow for greater creative control over one's life. This understanding reveals you to be a biochemical puppet, of course, but it also allows you to grab hold of one of your strings.”

The Second Gain: Emptiness toward Enlightenment

The second insight is the first applied to the broader world.

Everything in the universe is simply matter and energy following the laws of physics. There is no “good” or “bad.” Everything is empty of meaning, value, and emotional valence, except what our consciousness assigns to it. 

And with enough understanding, training, and reprogramming, we can “choose” not to assign anything to anything, except what makes our lives better.

It goes without saying: this is difficult. But the reality is that the rude cashier is just a collection of atoms constrained by the laws of physics. Ted Cruz is just following his genetic and societal programming. The chicken farmer, the person picking their toes on the train, the driver revving his unmuffled car – at the core, just collections of atoms, empty of any inherent meaning.

So instead of reacting with disdain, hatred, or mockery, we don’t have to react at all. Or we can “choose” to react with joy that we aren’t that person. Or we can “choose” compassion. Or we can “choose” to try to figure out actions that may help change a situation that is causing suffering in others – and we can make this choice without allowing ourselves to suffer. 

(And of course, when I say “choose,” I mean “use insights from others and our experiences to reprogram our neural net so we react differently in the future.”) 

Simply Another Way of Interacting with the World

We don’t start out knowing how to type, use a cellphone, or speak a language. We don’t simply “decide” to have those and other skills. But if something in our lives leads to the knowledge and training necessary, we can interact with the world in a new way. 

Learning a new language is perhaps the best example. People can speak German to me and I am unable to react in any positive, constructive way (unless they get a laugh from my idiotic grin). But because of an external factor (an excellent teacher in college) Anne “chose” to put in the time to learn and practice German, and now she has a new way of interacting with the world.

If you are reading this, it is likely that you have a similar ability – the ability to gain the knowledge and do the training necessary to achieve something closer to “enlightenment.” Put simply: 

By recognizing the illusion of free will and pursuing the right training / reprogramming, we can develop something much more like free will than we have now. We can take hold of one of the strings that currently makes our life worse than it needs to be. We can stop simply reacting and instead interact, with more control over our feelings.

In short: giving up free will and embracing emptiness can make life much better. 

One of the best speeches ever

Sending you love and kindness today. -m

Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1865

At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of this great contest which is of primary concern to the nation as a whole, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. 

It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not that we be not judged. 

The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations. 

Sunday Funnies: Reading online philosophy

 Bonusi:

Good News Channel (via Hank Green)

 
Sam Bentley's Good News YouTube channel

Here is his Good News in 2024 compilation

I definitely don't agree that all the concerns mentioned are real problems, or that some of the "good news" is actually "good," but this channel is a counter to the Cult of Doom.

The Least Self-Aware Guru

SKIP the below. Instead, check out Hannah Ritchie's latest about food production. (Don't read the comments.)

Also, the latest Freakonomics could literally save your life. tl;dr - wrongly thinking you are allergic to penicillin can lead to a lot of unnecessary suffering and death. Who knew?

We interrupt my attempts to be more positive for a bit of venting:

Our hero Sam Harris has a new, long Substack post (won't link to) bemoaning that fire hit his very rich neighborhood. He uses his platform to call on billionaires to give away their money to rebuild his wealthy neighborhood. 

Note: This multi-multi-millionaire did not and is not calling on billionaires to give away their money to the poor, nor to the disease-stricken, nor to those who have actually lost everything. No; only after his daughter's school partly burned did Sam call on billionaires to give away their money.

[I also found this commentary on Sam's post to be spot-on:

His claim that "If what someone's done to accumulate wealth isn't illegal we shouldn't be mad about it" is so mind-numbingly stupid that I had to stop and make sure I hadn't misread it. ... "We shouldn't resent the uber wealthy for dodging taxes that pay for things like public infrastructure and disaster relief. However, they should be nice and donate their money for disaster relief and public infrastructure where I live." 

The Sam Harris of 1930: "Sure we know they built their fortunes off of child labor in factories in mines, but that's legal and everything that's legal is okay (and everything that's illegal is bad!) so we can't get mad at them for having money. Don't get mad at rich people, that makes me sad!"]

In Sam's honor, here are some relevant past posts:

From 2018:

In the latest "Ask Me Anything," Sam was asked about the person who wanted to change his age from 69 to 49. In his answer, Sam compared him to the white con-woman who posed as black, and then to trans people. He concluded that we don't allow people to change their age merely because not enough people are "clamoring to do so."

Once again, Sam's lack of empathy and insight is astounding. This person wants to change his age to benefit himself. No one comes out as trans to benefit themselves. 2018 has had the most murders of trans people in the United States ever, and a similar rise in the rate of violence against trans individuals. This is not to mention what many trans people go through with family and in the workplace.

Hey Sam -- how many people are beaten to death for turning a certain age?

That Sam could even consider for a second that there is some equivalence between "feeling younger" and being trans -- let alone go on the record saying so -- is, to my mind, extraordinarily damning of Sam as a "thinker."

...

And again, in the AMA Sam claimed it was important that we see how unfairly celebrities have been treated by #MeToo, because "They are the canary in the coal mine." But what was his example of the great injustice? That people were mean to Matt Damon on Twitter.

It would appear that Sam's algorithm is simple: How will issue X affect well-off straight white men? More and more, it seems to me that is Sam's only concern in the world. He's become a new Jordan Peterson, just telling straight white men what they want to hear. How else can you possibly explain his contention that cross-burning darling of the KKK Charles Murray is "the most unfairly maligned person in my lifetime. That doesn’t really run the risk of being much of an exaggeration there."

PS: Another white guy pines for a time when only white guys had power.

Also from 2018:

Excerpts from Ezra Klein's interview with Sam Harris:

Sam: I’m in the, once again, having the bewildering experience of agreeing with virtually everything you said there, and yet it has basically no relevance to what I view as our underlying disagreement.

Ezra: You have that bewildering experience because you don’t realize when you keep saying that everybody else is thinking tribally, but you’re not, that that is our disagreement.

Sam: Well, no, because I know I’m not thinking tribally ... It’s not tribalism. This is an experience of talking about ideas in public. ... That is not identity politics. That is my experience as a public intellectual trying to talk about ideas.

Ezra: That is what folks from the dominant group get to do. They get to say, my thing isn’t identity politics, only yours is. I will tell you, Sam, when people who do not look like you hear you telling them that this is just identity politics, they don’t think, “God he’s right. That is just identity politics.” They think this is my experience and you don’t understand it. You just said it’s your experience and they don’t understand it.

Shorter Sam Harris: The only people who are being honest are me -- a well-off white guy -- and those who agree with me. Everyone else who doesn't agree is lying about "the data" and just playing politically-correct identity politics.

And what is the tragedy here? What is the worst thing that deserves our attention and must be addressed? Hundreds of years of racial oppression and violence? Unarmed people being shot? Study after study showing continued racial discrimination?

No. It is a very rich, very famous, very influential white cross-burning guy being disliked by some people on the left. Again, Sam Harris:

I hadn’t paid attention to [Charles] Murray. When I did read the book and did some more research on him, I came to think that he was probably the most unfairly maligned person in my lifetime. That doesn’t really run the risk of being much of an exaggeration there.

Wow.

From 2019:

There are some people, like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro, who I think very actively cause more suffering in the world (and, sadly, are enabled by lots of "reasonable" people who care more about congeniality than consequences).

However, Sam Harris just makes me sad. I still start [again: 2019] many of his podcasts because he has interesting people (for example Andrew McAfee). But I was dismayed to hear that not only does he add a preface to his interviews, Harris has now added a postscript to make it more about him -- and to attack his guests when they aren't able to reply. This continues to undermine his contention that "conversation" [sic] is the most important tool we have (a belief I don't share).

What is much worse, however, is Harris' incredible close-mindedness. He is utterly convinced that he has all truth. He contends that any other perspective isn't just wrong but also the root of everything bad (i.e., Hillary lost by refusing to condemn Islam as Sam does). His sneering and thoughtless denigrations of "The Left," "identity politics," and anyone who is "woke" are so childish that I am continually amazed that no one Sam respects will point that out to him. But it seems as though there are fewer and fewer people he respects. Anyone who has a different point of view is quickly dismissed out of hand. If you don't have Sam's well-off straight white male perspective, you need to "get over it." ...

I believe that Sam is right about free will -- that is, that everything that happens is just physics (chemistry, biology). I understand that Sam can't do any differently than his clueless arrogance. Worshipful echo chambers are powerful drugs. So I really should just "get over it" and not let it bother me. But at least as of today, it still does.

A Key Purpose of the Blog (from 2022)

<unnecessary>One thing I learned when writing Losing My Religions is that I'm not a very original thinker. For example, Yuval Noah Harari wrote about the Simulation Hypothesis a few months before I published the precursor to my chapter "Worst Than Hitler." <ego>The only unique idea (as far as I've been able to find) I have in the book is "Biting the Philosophical Bullet" (and the related "My Expected Value Is Bigger Than Yours"). ("The End of Veganism" is certainly not a common idea, although The Animalist has covered it too.)</ego>

There are a lot of interesting and insightful ideas out there on the intertubes. Trying to find them and bring them to you is one of the reasons I write this blog. This is important, IMO, because many good ideas are buried in an ocean of verbiage and highfalutin language. Someone who investigated Effective Altruism noted that it would take 80,000 hours to read what EAs have already written, let alone what will be written in the next week.</unnecessary>

<actual point>I came across this interesting series of posts about Replacing Guilt. [2024 update from Hank Green.] If guilt is an issue for you (e.g., if you've been raised Catholic, have perfectionist tendencies, etc.) it might be worth a skim.

In short:

1. Guilt is bad*. It is negative and makes life worse than it need be, and it doesn't create any useful action that couldn't be motivated by a positive emotion.
2. Guilt is often a symptom of an illogical approach to life. In addition to recognizing #1, we can change our view of decisions to minimize the role of guilt. 

Now, as per "Biting the Philosophical Bullet," my underlying philosophy, and thus goals, are different than the "Replacing Guilt" author. But I think his points are useful regardless. A few quotes:

Once we have learned our lessons from the past, there is no reason to wrack ourselves with guilt. All we need to do, in any given moment, is look upon the actions available to us, consider, and take whichever one seems most likely to lead to a future full of light. 

 

I hang out around a lot of effective altruists. Many of them are motivated primarily by something like guilt (for having great resources and opportunity while others suffer) or shame (for not helping enough). Hell, many of my non-EA friends are primarily motivated by guilt or shame. 

 

I worry that guilt and shame are unhealthy long-term motivators. [Why the vast majority of people who go vegan quit.] In many of my friends, guilt and shame tend to induce akrasia [procrastination / indecision], reduce productivity, and drain motivation. 

[Goes on to say we should work so that the outcome is good enough - to the point of decreasing utility: "Half-ass everything, with everything you've got."] 

 

Over and over, I see people set themselves a target, miss it by a little, and then throw all restraint to the wind. "Well," they seem to think, "willpower has failed me; I might as well over-indulge." I call this pattern "failing with abandon." [Many former vegans.] 

 

But you don't have to fail with abandon. When you miss your targets, you're allowed to say "dang!" and then continue trying to get as close to your target as you can. 

 

...[T]he subject thinks there's something they should be doing, and they're not doing it, and so they feel really guilty. 

I claim that the word "should" is causing damage here. 

In fact, as far as I can tell, the way that most people use the word "should," most of the time, is harmful. People seem to use it to put themselves in direct and unnecessary conflict with themselves. 

If you often suffer from guilt, then I strongly suggest cashing out your shoulds. Get a tally counter and start training yourself to notice [mindfulness] when you say the word "should."

[N]ever let a "should" feel like a reason to do something. Only do things because they seem like the best thing to do after you've thought about it; never do things just because you "should."

[E]ven among people who claim to be moral relativists: they protest that if they weigh their wants and their shoulds on the same scales, then they might make the wrong choice.

But this notion of "right" vs "wrong" cannot come from outside. There is no stone tablet among the stars that mandates what is right. Moral relativists usually have no trouble remembering that their narrow, short-term desires (for comfort, pleasure, etc.) are internal, but many seem to forget that their wide, long-term desires (flourishing, less suffering, etc.) are also part of them.

Note: I still struggle with guilt in one area of my life. [Less so since I first published this.] So I'm not some mindful, logical master.

*You should definitely feel guilty if you haven't read and reviewed Losing!  

😆

Prescient Sunday Funny

March 13, 2016

Third and last set of color pictures from Losing My Religions

San Diego (this particular rock is no longer standing)

Cut from book

Taken from our street.

Taken from CVS parking lot

Santa Fe

Saguaro flowers

Saguaro with an arm on an arm on an arm. This one died years ago.

Yosemite Valley

Yosemite Falls (and below)

Yellowstone Falls

Few things are less important than being right

Riparian area, Sabino Canyon

 

tl;dr: Going to try to make the blog more upbeat, mindful, and useful going forward. But not this day.  😜 

Being right is unimportant.

Three observations from the intertubes:

1. Patron-supported content is not necessarily better than ad-supported content. Anything related to opinion (politics, culture, environmentalism, veganism, conspiracy theories, etc.) is driven by the need to be loved. You have to flatter egos enough to prompt people to give you money. "Everyone who isn't vegan like you is an idiotic, hypocritical moral monster!"

This doesn't apply to things like Universe Today or even First Phil Whisky.

2. Related to supporter-capture / loudest-voice: I came across a Substacker who basically writes "Everyone who isn't vegan like you is an idiotic, hypocritical moral monster!" over and over and over again. I asked him (and it is pretty safe to assume it is a him) if he thought his posts are effective at convincing anyone who isn't already vegan. No answer.

I came across this person via a link from psychologist Paul Bloom, who linked to a "Liberals who aren't vegan are hypocrites" post. Dr. Bloom's comment was, basically, "Hate to break it to you, but we are all hypocrites."

3. Related: within-community amplification of negativity makes that community incredibly unattractive to others. <coughveganismcough> 

Example: Christmas Eve here in Tucson was just about perfect, weather-wise -- sunny, little wind, upper-70s. The Tucson subreddit was filled with wailing and rending of clothes. "This isn't normal!"

So? 

More people should die from cold?

You know what else isn't "normal"? Antibiotics. Indoor plumbing. Contraception. Surviving childbirth most of the time. Etc.

Regardless of "normal," nice weather is nice weather. It really shouldn't be hard to see how repulsive it is to be bitching over a beautiful day. 

Can you find a cloud in every silver lining? Sure. But why? Being happy is inherently better than being "right;" better to be a fool satisfied than Socrates dissatisfied.  

More importantly, though, being happy is the way to attract people to ideas that can make the world even better.