art is a waste of time; reducing suffering is all that matters

I find that most of us seem to ultimately care about something close to the concept of ‘wellbeing’ – we want everyone to be happy and fulfilled, and we promote anything that leads to humans and animals feeling happy and fulfilled. I rarely meet Effective Altruists who care about, say, beauty, knowledge, life or the environment for their own sake – rather, they tend to find that they care about these things only insofar as they contribute to wellbeing.

I wonder why they feel the need to couch it in this way, i.e.

(a) We don't care about beauty, knowledge, life or the environment for their own sake.

rather than

(b) We care about beauty, knowledge, life and the environment for their own sake, but they're ultimately trumped by human wellbeing.

As it is, (a) just sounds perversely shallow. It's the "one thought too many" objection in Susan Wolf's "Moral Saints" - if you care about the environment only insofar as it contributes to human wellbeing, then you've introduced a mediating condition that doesn't ring true to depth of love people feel towards nature. They could avoid (a) just by claiming that human and animal wellbeing is the thing that matters most, rather than the only thing that ultimately matters. But that would mean complicating the utilitarian picture.

art, because suffering is our lot in life (philosophio-religio-pessimist option) otm

muddling thru

Really what this makes me think about is whether we define "happiness and wellbeing" (I'm more thinking of the happiness part) positively, as in active affirmations that put us in a state that we think of as 'happy', or negatively, that is, lack of any environmental factors that would cause stress and pain and terror

yeah I feel like one possible logical outcome of this would be, like, opium dens.

(lifespan and happiness - suffering) is a difficult merit function to calculate. The sensitivity of this merit function with respect to a change in art production is also unclear. I am shruggie otis on this one.

To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you." 17Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.…

just sayin

i stand with the philosophio-religio-pessimists but have a growing respect for these hardline utilitarians. especially the ones worried about all the people in the future who might not get to live if skynet happens. (that was the previous Aeon article I read. What is this curious magazine?)

Beauty, knowledge, life, and the environment would to me seem intrinsic to true human well-being, not just survival. I mean obviously we have to take care of survival first, but the ideal world is one where everyone has the chance for happiness, (i.e. *thriving* rather than hedonism).

I have trouble thinking through some of their positions - how does this intersect with the law? Like if there were broadly victimless, lowish risk insurance or tax frauds that would give you extra money to give to de-worming charities, would you be you morally obliged to do that?

This EA thing strikes me as weirdly anti-human for a type of humanitarianism.

why is distraction, ie absorption in art, not conducive to this in a brave new world sense?

doesn't minimizing suffering lead to some kind malthussian reverse repugnant conclusion where like - we should kill everyone so no one has to suffer anymore bc life after all is suffering?

xp
Inefficient: opportunity cost of culture-production + substitutability of forms of distraction?

I voted for Shruggie Otis, his art has reduced my suffering in life.

there's the "anti-natalist" thing, mordy.

Schopenhauer otm

i think the singerite EAs care primarily about what could be done about the suffering right now

they probably think it would be nice to be able to develop and pursue happiness or whatever in all these other ways

IF there weren't unnecessary unmitigated suffering that it would be a better use of our time/effort to take care of first

It seems to me that pretty much every cultural grouping of humans in the world devotes some time to making something that could be called "art" no matter how impoverished. Perhaps we should go lecture them about how they're wasting their time when they could be "alleviating suffering." It also seems to me that a life focused singlemindedly on improving physical and material well being is a life of mental suffering.

art reduces suffering this question eats its own tail

some art increases suffering

some things could do both! like junk food, maybe.

i love cheeseburgers but i am wracked by ethical guilt when i succumb to eating one. (though i guess the suffering of animals is being tabled for this discussion)

agree with the "anti-human" vibe I'm getting from this article. EA people quoted treat people as disposable machines who have an outside obligation to function at highest capacity to save other lives ... for what, for the lives saved to be disposable machines, too? cuz life without art, beauty, etc., would be pretty bland, there's probably a reason humans (and neanderthals!) got into this shit in the first place.

it seems like a weird combination of dehumanizing Anglo-American capitalism with "x lives saved" as profits returned. they don't even get into the classic problem of overpopulation ... the more lives you save, the more suffering you create in a world that can't handle everyone at once, particularly with climate change looking like it's irreversible. but these people don't seem to think that far! anyone who willingly devotes themselves to radicalism is going to have some screws loose, I guess.

Having EA explained to me by an adherent would increase my suffering.

I don't think bill gates is a disciple but I suspect his foundation operates on similar principles, which leads to things like nuclear advocacy, which I'm going to assume he's done the research and has seen it as the rational way forward but it just strikes me as the same kind of lack of imagination for something greater that results in shitty windows that makes me worry that we will see shitty but rational cost effective philanthropy dominating just by the sheer weight of his foundation

On the other hand it is really hard to argue against eradicating polio malaria etc

lol nerds

Here’s a simple test to determine if you’re creating art for yourself or for the world.

can i post my percentage on facebook

‘It’s hard to see how a vase or something would really impact culture in any one way, because what does it teach you about life?’

Isn't there a very famous poem about that?

lol consequentialists

i like that the liberal-capitalist ideal of the artist (teaching people that gays are good, encouraging the altruistic pursuit of money) is so close to the stalinist one (the engineer of the soul)

First, afaics nothing is going to stop people from creating art of some kind. We've been doing it since approximately 30,000 years ago. Suggesting that we stop this activity is like King Knut commanding the waves to turn back.

Second, the argument that the creation of art is squandering some vast amount of resources that could effectively be used to reduce suffering seems very poorly grounded. The resources required to create many forms of art, e.g a dance, a poem, a song, are effectively nil. You don't need anything but your own mind and body. The amounts of money paid for certain art objects applies to such a tiny range of artistic output it is ridiculous to equate this with "art" as a whole.

Third, the idea of diverting economic resources to altruistic uses is quite vague. Who would get these resources and how would they be used to reduce suffering in a community? The only model I can see for such resource use are NGOs such as Oxfam or Red Crescent. If an entire new apparatus is envisioned, I would like to know what it would be.

If NGOs are indeed the model, then it is a highly problematic model as the instrument to address human suffering as a whole.

Lastly, if we are going to stop one human endeavor and divert all its resources to combating suffering, I'd suggest stopping war and disbanding all national armed forces. Just the cessation of war would bring an instant reduction of suffering, without reference to spending military resources for anything else.

NB: If the EAs want to increase happiness, how would ridding the world of art accomplish that?

they apparatuses are named in the article, aimless. i think they are like oxfam etc. but with some modern datacentric junk thrown in to determine effectiveness etc.

i don't think they want to rid the world of art, there's plenty of it already, the question is how to spend your time from here on out given what else you could be doing

there's plenty of it already

this only applies to a consumerist model of art. the joy of making art can never be exhausted.

I vote for EA Sports because Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2010 has reduced suffering in my life

A wholly utilitarian critique of art was already developed under Marxism-Leninism. This seems to be animated by a similar spirit. I don't mind this sort of thinking when it is applied as the expression of a personal ethic. Where it seems out of joint is its implicit claim to a set of first principles that should be applied prescriptively to everyone everywhere. It seems much too spindly for that.

if this movement makes Chris Martin never want to sing again I say FULL STEAM AHEAD

i stand with the philosophio-religio-pessimists but have a growing respect for these hardline utilitarians. especially the ones worried about all the people in the future who might not get to live if skynet happens. (that was the previous Aeon article I read. What is this curious magazine?)

― woof

thanks for linking to that, awesome article

I'm sorry but 'value over replacement altruist' is one of the more disgustingly wrongheaded metrics I've come across in the whole rationalization-of-charitable-giving field

(probly doesn't help that I find sweeping prescriptions about charity vulgar to begin with)

‘I myself was extremely interested in evolutionary biology,’ Wiblin said, ‘and I would have liked to become an academic in that area. But I couldn’t really justify it on the effects that it has on helping other people, even though I found it fascinating.’

‘I myself was extremely interested in evolutionary biology,’ Wiblin said, ‘and I would have liked to become an academic in that area. But I couldn’t really justify it on the effects that it has on helping other people, even though I found it fascinating.’

‘I myself was extremely interested in evolutionary biology,’ Wiblin said, ‘and I would have liked to become an academic in that area. But I couldn’t really justify it on the effects that it has on helping other people, even though I found it fascinating.’

‘I myself was extremely interested in evolutionary biology,’ Wiblin said, ‘and I would have liked to become an academic in that area. But I couldn’t really justify it on the effects that it has on helping other people, even though I found it fascinating.’

‘I myself was extremely interested in evolutionary biology,’ Wiblin said, ‘and I would have liked to become an academic in that area. But I couldn’t really justify it on the effects that it has on helping other people, even though I found it fascinating.’

‘I myself was extremely interested in evolutionary biology,’ Wiblin said, ‘and I would have liked to become an academic in that area. But I couldn’t really justify it on the effects that it has on helping other people, even though I found it fascinating.’

‘I myself was extremely interested in evolutionary biology,’ Wiblin said, ‘and I would have liked to become an academic in that area. But I couldn’t really justify it on the effects that it has on helping other people, even though I found it fascinating.’

‘I myself was extremely interested in evolutionary biology,’ Wiblin said, ‘and I would have liked to become an academic in that area. But I couldn’t really justify it on the effects that it has on helping other people, even though I found it fascinating.’

‘I myself was extremely interested in evolutionary biology,’ Wiblin said, ‘and I would have liked to become an academic in that area. But I couldn’t really justify it on the effects that it has on helping other people, even though I found it fascinating.’

‘I myself was extremely interested in evolutionary biology,’ Wiblin said, ‘and I would have liked to become an academic in that area. But I couldn’t really justify it on the effects that it has on helping other people, even though I found it fascinating.’

‘I myself was extremely interested in evolutionary biology,’ Wiblin said, ‘and I would have liked to become an academic in that area. But I couldn’t really justify it on the effects that it has on helping other people, even though I found it fascinating.’

‘I myself was extremely interested in evolutionary biology,’ Wiblin said, ‘and I would have liked to become an academic in that area. But I couldn’t really justify it on the effects that it has on helping other people, even though I found it fascinating.’

i remember arguing against baking pizza for a school fundraiser when we sucked at baking pizza, but I was overruled, so we baked some awful pizza and maybe made back the cost of ingredients in sales, and i do feel a lot of art does tend to fall in the category of baking sucky pizza, and our sucky pizza, if it was an art movement, was on the vanguard of suckism.

I have calculated that if all the moments annually spent picking one's nose were aggregated and monetized effectively by all 7 billion humans, with the proceeds redirected toward ending suffering, it could feed nearly 1.35 million people or vaccinate 3.62 million children. To say nothing whatsoever about masturbation.

I assume that 'effective altruists' also extend this principle to other areas of human activity: friends, relationships, children, etc. Having and raising a child in the First World is surely a far greater drain on time and resources than writing music or dancing.

xposts

i dunno, i find you can save a lot of time by being a really half-arsed parent

xpost to sund4r: yeah it seems like either their movement or this article has conflated "art" with "romantic individualism"

fwiw, I occasionally style myself a writer, and I am already quite capable of objecting to my own work on the grounds of its uselessness & fungibility thankyouverymuch

Like if there were broadly victimless, lowish risk insurance or tax frauds that would give you extra money to give to de-worming charities, would you be you morally obliged to do that?

Yeah, these jobs that generate lots of money which is then used for altruistic purposes: where is the money coming from? Are they really sure that large sums of money are being generated in this global economy without exploitation and suffering?

And in order for someone to become a successful, world-beating, big-money artist (whose life is then justified), don't they usually need to go through stages of being mediocre and struggling to improve, of cranking out failed drafts?

everyone is, in some way, tripping balls with huckabee

why is nearly everyone such a giant piece of shit

they weren't born that way, but they are bent that way

tried to read this but it was increasing my suffering

even iggy pop comes across as just another old white guy who just fucking die, in the article

I lol’d + googled “richard mumby”

There are a ton of reasons to hate on my town but I do luxuriate in the remarkable distance it puts between my family and whatever that article is about. Like, we have some free museums open to the public, and you can catch an opera at the Kennedy Center. AFAIK there’s no dinners for everyone who spent $50,000 at Balmain, or big ideas about exhibits devoted to Britney. Just nerds and trained killers and spies, for miles around.

Lesson: Beaches give people the worst ideas

So then, I guess you must you live in Alexandria, or right near it.

Xpost Don't shit on Bette Midler yo

El Tomboto can and prolly will answer this but no, El Tomboto emphatically does not live in Alexandria

I was mistaken. That's what I get for playing at Where's Waldo with an ilxor.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/t-magazine/romantic-relationships.html

Q: Can you help with art suggestions for my severe fear of engulfment when it comes to being involved with someone romantically? This leads me to miss out on opportunities to be with really great guys with whom I connect initially. — Elizabeth, New York City

A: In some ways I am the wrong person to answer this question, as all my life I have willingly gone headlong in search of engulfment. Of course there’s fear. If nothing is at stake — if there’s no risk of grief and desolation when you come out the other side — how can you ever really feel anything? To be wholly dissolved and lost, whether in another person or in the presence of a work of art, in a spiritual encounter or in a greater cause: This can be dangerous, but also freeing — an escape from the prison of the self. You should not be able to walk away unscathed, which is to say, unchanged.

Nothing to do with the thread subject, but you can put a hell of a lot of skin in the game and risk plenty of grief when you come out the other side without seeking "engulfment". That sounds rather unhealthy to me. The words to describe what I seek are more on the order of "complete engagement with and commitment to" my relationship.

i think a primary objective of much art, and a silver lining of darker art, is reduction of suffering by reminding us we're not alone, or simarly, "the only one"

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/opinion/sonny-rollins-art.html

When I go to the museum and I look at a piece of art, I’m transported. I don’t know how, or where, but I know that it’s not a part of the material world. It’s beyond modern culture’s political, technological soul. We’re not here to live forever. Humans and materialism die. But there’s no dying in art.

wow

eating breakfast is a waste of time; reducing coronavirus infections is all that mattera

tom morello, 1992 pic.twitter.com/jBHKMJKVZ1

— chelsea (@cheIseahaynes) June 6, 2020

is sex important or is reducing suffering all that matters
is ilxor.com important
are hot dogs important

has hip hop helped reduce suffering of those who feel suppressed, powerless, trapped, unheard

the cure helps me especially when I was younger

i like that tom morello quote tho it does little to explain audioslave

well, in 1996, there was no indication they were going to happen.

I know ilx likes to ride for this dude and ratm is alright but his singer-songwriter material is some of the most execrable music I have ever heard

why are you always such a wet blanket, paul ponzi

perhaps he is suffering

does that mean that we have to

yes, if are we sentient

One man's suffering is another man's reverse schadenfreude.

his singer-songwriter material is some of the most execrable music I have ever heard

Singer-songwriter music is a pestilence.

except when it's the best stuff ever

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/magazine/what-do-we-mean-when-we-call-art-necessary.html

The prospect of “necessary” art allows members of the audience to free themselves from having to make choices while offering the critic a nifty shorthand to convey the significance of her task, which may itself be one day condemned as dispensable. The effect is something like an absurd and endless syllabus, constantly updating to remind you of ways you might flunk as a moral being. It’s a slightly subtler version of the 2016 marketing tagline for the first late-night satirical news show with a female host, “Full Frontal With Samantha Bee”: “Watch or you’re sexist.”

I LOVE music. I’ve essentially dedicated my life to it.. but no song has ever changed the world, not even “We Are The World”

— mrk (@MerkSays) June 17, 2020

false

What the hell is “changing the world” anyway

true

You must ain’t never heard “OLD TOWN ROAD” 🙄

— OG $ILKY PSALM ONE 👩🏾‍🔬 (@PsalmOne) June 17, 2020

I have heard tell of a guitar that kills fascists.

Are you suggesting that this is not so?

lol this thread is an ilx first mention for “Effective Altruism”. The original article has disappeared, so THANK GOD for the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140322045146/http://aeon.co/magazine/living-together/art-is-a-selfish-waste-of-time-says-effective-altruism/