• Sort Blog:
  • All
  • Book Reviews
  • EA Rotterdam
  • Essays
  • Flotes
  • Goals
  • Links
  • Series
  • Short Stories
  • Uncategorized

Brick by Brick

Dive into the world of Lego with Brick by Brick by David Robertson and Bill Green. This compelling book takes you on an adventure through the recent history of Lego. It’s written in 2013 and takes the closest look at the 15 years preceding that year. It’s here where the company loses focus, tries to innovate too much, and start haemorrhaging money. But the company does find its way back (into the living room of kids) and is now seen as a powerhouse of the toy industry.

The 7 Truths

  1. Build an innovative culture
  2. Become customer driven
  3. Explore the full spectrum of innovation
  4. Foster Open Innovation
  5. Attempt a disruptive innovation
  6. Sail for Blue Oceans
  7. Leverage diverse and creative people

These sound pretty good, right? Well, they were almost the end of the whole LEGO empire. And what I took home most from the book is that they tried to do too much at the same time. They tried to make something similar to Minecraft (and that didn’t work because of their demands, not perse because of Minecraft’s competition). And the company forgot what their core competence was (the LEGO play experience, with the brick at its core).

Another central theme of the book was the neglect of the customer. LEGO didn’t listen to what the customers wanted. They even actively disengaged with adults who bought LEGO (which accounted for 15% or more of the sales). Only with much reluctance did they involve the customer in the development process. And at a level, I can relate to LEGO. It’s sometimes difficult to receive honest feedback. Both emotionally (you don’t want to hear it), and more basically (the customer doesn’t always know what they want or how to articulate that need). But it’s definitely something to remember and do.

Brick by Brick is a great look inside this iconic company. It’s more an examination than a book full of lessons. And that is alright. Read it if you’re interested in LEGO and innovation.

Against Empathy

In Against Empathy by Paul Bloom, we get to take an exciting look into what it feels like to take an unpopular stance. The book makes the moral case for compassion. And more than that takes on empathy (feeling of others’ emotions) on as the enemy. It’s a very interesting book that has already sparked some interesting conversations.

Use your head, not your heart

This is what I think gets the most pushback. You may ask, ‘why not use my heart, that is what makes me a moral person!’. And I totally get that. That is also how I would react instinctively. Wouldn’t we all start killing each other when there is no more heart involved? Bloom argues for a no.

One of the main arguments he puts forward is that empathy has a spotlight effect. We focus on certain people, in the here and now. Empathy is not what will lead you to donate malaria nets or make you care about climate change (how would you even see or feel that). Things we should very much care about are not touched upon by empathy. Compassion and rationality, Bloom argues, is much better at this.

Here it is in Bloom’s words:

“Empathy is a spotlight focusing on certain people in the here and now. This makes us care more about them, but it leaves us insensitive to the long-term consequences of our acts and blind as well to the suffering of those we do not or cannot empathize with. Empathy is biased, pushing us in the direction of parochialism and racism. It is shortsighted, motivating actions that might make things better in the short term but lead to tragic results in the future. It is innumerate, favoring the one over the many. It can spark violence; our empathy for those close to us is a powerful force for war and atrocity toward others. It is corrosive in personal relationships; it exhausts the spirit and can diminish the force of kindness and love.”

 

So you are forewarned, read this book at your own peril (but do very much read it).

 

Some more notes

  • Bloom is not against morality, compassion, kindness, love, being a good neighbour, being a mensch, and doing the right thing
  • He defines empathy as: “The act of coming to experience the world as you think someone else does.”
  • Many moral actions require no empathy for you to act (e.g. saving a drowning child)
  • Empathy may block you from taking action, or start avoiding the situation (e.g. beggar on the street, woman who lived next to Nazi camp)
  • Empathy can make you do acts that are unfair (e.g. experiment where asked to feel like ill girl in line, people moved her up, ahead of more sick children)
  • “If you absorb the suffering of others, then you’re less able to help them in the long run because achieving long-term goals often requires inflicting short-term pain.”
  • Psychopaths may very well have empathy. Their folly is a lack of moral guidelines and self-control
  • We can ‘read’ another person’s (or dog/cat) mind without having to feel their feelings
  • The ‘identifiable victim effect’ shows how empathy can only extend to one person (and if you show more, or numbers, people tune out)
  • In general, we care most about people who are like us (and from a Selfish Gene standpoint we can see where that comes from)
  • And we care about things that catch our attention (e.g. saving a dog from a well and that costing $27.000, that is more than needed to save a life)
  • Good parenting involves moments where you let your kid(s) suffer a little (e.g. not giving them the second ice cream)
  • Foreign aid can backfire in many ways (e.g. ‘orphans’, dependency of economies)
  • Both liberals and conservatives make emphatic appeals
  • Compassion is feeling for the other, and not feeling with the other
  • Evil in the world is not done by moral monsters (they don’t exist), it’s done by people who think they are doing the right thing
  • Empathy (for your group) can motivate violence (against the other group)
  • We are often irrational beings (see Thinking, Fast and Slow)

 

 

Stealing Fire

Stealing Fire by Steven Kotler and Jamie Wheal explores the concept of ecstasis. What is that? You may ask. It’s the moments you step outside yourself. It’s when you’re taking out of your rut and you feel alive. It’s what extreme sports enable. It’s why people take psychedelic drugs. And it’s what Kotler and Wheal have been searching for in the past few years. The book is very interesting to read, sometimes light on science, but high (pun intended) on aspiration and futurism.

STER

The book expands on ideas proposed by Csikszentmihalyi (Flow) and Kotler (The Rise of Superman). They take flow, a state of concentration or complete absorption with the activity at hand and the situation, and elevate it even further to ‘STER’.

  • Selflessness: (partial) loss of ego or executive function
  • Timelessness: attention is driven to the present (and you’re not wondering about yesterday/tomorrow, which in most cases is less enjoyable to do)
  • Effortlessness: it all seems easier because of a mix of chemicals in your brain (norepinephrine, dopamine, endorphins, anandamide, oxytocin, serotonin)
  • Richness: because there is more focus on the now you see more patterns, connections, ‘umwelt’, there is more processing of the now

Kotler and Wheal also discuss why we haven’t done more already in exploring these types of states. They argue that it’s because of the church (but you could argue that revelations that started religions were inspired by ecstasis states). Another reason is how we look at our bodies and that using external tools is cheating (but if you take this view, eating itself is cheating). And finally that the state prohibits experimentation and ecstasis experiences (banning drugs, dangerous sports, etc).

The 4 Forces to Ecstasis

Stealing Fire is full of examples of how we’re progressing and finding out new ways to achieve ecstasis. The authors state that there are four main drivers/areas of new discoveries:

  1. Neurobiology: we are getting better at understanding what is going on in our brain. What is the influence of certain drugs, states, activities? We can almost measure these things in real-time
  2. Psychology: take the learnings from 10 years meditation and condense them into a few weeks. Promises like that are starting to emerge from the field of psychology.
  3. Technology: neurofeedback, sharing experiences, virtual reality. With technology, the advance and sharing of ecstasis will be able to spread exponentially.
  4. Pharmacology: there are recipe books out there that help us better explore our own minds. And at the same time drugs are being used in a better way to treat mental diseases.

 

I listened to the book and I think that was the right choice. But for taking notes/making this summary it’s less useful. One thing I will be taking away (doing now) is the Hedonic Calendar. It’s their way of looking at ecstasis and how much you should be seeking it. It shouldn’t be that you’re always trying to lose yourself (your executive function isn’t there for nothing), but that you do it responsibly and in a way that enables learning and development.

Daily activities:
Meditation
Morning Stretches
Read

Weekly activities:
Crossfit x3
Few drinks
Bedtime x3

Monthly activities:

Bi-monthly activities:
Mind expansion

Annual activities:
Vacation x2+
Mega sports challenge

Gut check (no substances):
November
May

Additional checks:
No more than 1x p/month mind expansion & more than a few drinks
First entrepreneurship, then relationships, then fun

Make Haste Slowly!

 

Existential Risks

On Tuesday 23rd of January 2018, the EA Rotterdam group had their second reading & discussion group. This is a deeper dive into some of the EA topics.

The topic for this event was ‘Extinction Risks‘ from the 80,000 hours website.

The evening unfolded into a thrilling discussion in which great questions were asked.

We (the organisers of EA Rotterdam) thank Alex from V2 (our venue for the night) for hosting us.

If you want to visit an EA Rotterdam event, visit our Meetup page.

 

Humanity is Facing its Most Dangerous Time Ever

Wait, what? How can this be? Isn’t it the most peaceful time ever? (discussion here) There is no world war, no black plague, no biblical tidal wave. Yet, we live in a more dangerous time than ever before. We have harnessed the power of the atom (read: made a ton of nuclear weapons). We are cracking the genetic codes (read: bioterror from a basement). We are changing the climate without regard for what will happen. We are developing an intelligence that will far surpass us (AI).

We are living in dangerous times. Experts estimate our extinction risk to be between 1-20% in the next century. That is some orders of magnitude higher than the average person would ever guess. But, we are also living in a time where our resources can be used for good. We are living in a time where we can gather our resources to prevent (some of the) bad outcomes. Extinction risks is a neglected cause and an optimist would see here a great opportunity to do good.

Want to take action? Go here in the 80,000 hours article.

Nuclear War

We discussed how nuclear war could wreak havoc on the world. The combination with ideology (and patriotism/tribalism) is what makes this such a pressing problem. Where in the Cold War two nations were keeping each other in check with MAD, today more and more actors (read: countries/groups) have gotten their hands on nuclear weapons. And although the Cold War has come to an end, there is still tension between Russia and America (like a lot).

There are fewer foot soldiers around the world but cyber attacks and the like have taken their place. Conflicts between countries are being fought in different places. Both digitally as physically (think Ukraine). But nuclear war is not out of the question. North Korea could do untold damage to South Korea, Japan and America. And that hasn’t even numbered in the risk of AI in combination with nuclear weapons.

New technology always finds a way to spread itself. And we people can decide to do good or bad with it. Or even have good intentions (e.g. energy) and have bad outcomes (e.g. climate change). The proliferation of information and technology is virtually unstoppable. So we must recognise that we can’t control the tech.

Uncontrollable Tech

What if I told you that I could 3D print a gun? Disturbing right. I could make a gun without a registration number. So, what if I told you that anyone with an internet connection and access to a 3D printer could do this? That is the reality we live in today. More on this in this excellent Planet Money episode. And what if the person that made the blueprints is now selling a mill that can make an aluminium frame of an AR-15.

This is a prime example of bad consequences of technology that was made to do good (e.g. 3D print heart valves). We did ask the question: Where are these guns were going? Is it just a group of anarchists that have them stocked in their house? Or will these guns be the next ones used in a mass shooting? Or are we good people in our hearts? Or are the people who commit murders not the people who care much about their privacy and whether their guns have a serial number?

What became clear is that (new) technology increases our power. Our power to do both good and bad. And that tech has unforeseen and unforeseeable consequences. The latter we can’t do anything about, but the former we can become better at. The Future of Humanity Institute is a research institute that is investigating ways to do this.

Divided Together

One other factor in extinction risk is us, our divided world. Because of algorithms we live in our own filter bubbles. We can say that we’re both smart and stupid at the same time. We can learn as much as we want, but hearing an opinion that isn’t aligned with what we think is very unlikely. And yes, we lived in our own bubbles before, but it has become worse through technology.

And when we code machines to emulate us, it takes on our biases. An experiment with a twitter bot ended in racism, in 24 hours. If there is a faulty premise/logic behind a program, it may perform in a way we didn’t intend it should. And the faults can be invisible (like filter bubbles which only reached our conversations last year), and we can become dependent on them. And are the bubbles even bad? Don’t they make us feel comfortable? To that I would say, easy choices hard life, hard choices easy live.

Why Care?

Is there any reason we should even care that we’re divided and risk extinction? Carl Sagan says yes we should.

If we are required to calibrate extinction in numerical terms, I would be sure to include the number of people in future generations who would not be born…. (By one calculation), the stakes are one million times greater for extinction than for the more modest nuclear wars that kill “only” hundreds of millions of people. There are many other possible measures of the potential loss—including culture and science, the evolutionary history of the planet, and the significance of the lives of all of our ancestors who contributed to the future of their descendants. Extinction is the undoing of the human enterprise.”(source)

We agreed that a person not born does not equate a person being killed. But we also talked about the joy that this person could not experience (because of not being). This can be called he unfulfilled potential. The potential for happiness, technology, society, artistic expression, and more.

More on this in a great interview by Sam Harris with David Benatar.

Prepare Yourself

What if we stopped looking for answers and just tried to live out the extinction events? That is what preppers are preparing for. Some very rich technologists are buying land in New Zealand (read more). Whilst others are planning to freeze their bodies until a time comes to save/heal themselves if/when technology keeps progressing (more at Wait But Why). We ended up discussing that time might be better spend solving than preparing.

Why Neglected?

Extinction risks are far away. Climate (change) is something we don’t experience, we experience weather. So we have to address rationality (logos) and not emotion (pathos). Or at least try and use more rationality because sometimes emotions are working against us.

Climate change and conflict lead to migration and when nationalism is encouraged, people from one country are not likely to help people from another country. They ask themselves, ‘Why help these other people?’, we have our own struggles.

Steven Pinker is positive about our ability to change. In his book (buy it here) Better Angels of our Nature he argues that we’re becoming more compassionate. We’re making our circle of empathy (or compassion) larger.

William MacAskill (80k podcast link) argues the same. He states that our morals are improving and that those of future generations will likely be even better. He argues that people with ‘bad’ ideas aren’t stupid, they are just uninformed. You only need one wrong belief (and many right reasons) to go down a wrong path. So when we increase our logical thinking, we might end up somewhere more positive.

Speaking for the Future

The green party (Groenlinks) proposed an ombudsman for the future. The goal was that this person would represent our future generations. Because the actions we take now will influence their lives. And they don’t get to have a vote now.

How can we become more future-oriented? Can we improve our voting systems? We had some ideas and there is more in Buying Time (buy it here). And watch this video by David Letterman and Barack Obama about why people don’t vote.

Optimist vs Cynic

You have to believe in an optimistic world (at least so I think). But we’ve become more cynical over the last decades. Why? We’ve lost our belief in social progress. After the second world war you could move upward, now we don’t see these possibilities anymore.

In the enlightenment, there was a march or reason. The 19th century brought us romanticism. And in the 20th century, we saw how reason could be used for nefarious purposes. We see how reason, capitalism, efficiency can be used for bad things.

The world has become too complicated. Wages are frozen. And people feel they aren’t benefitting from the technological progress that’s being made. The cost of living is going up. And people are able to see how others around them are thriving (thanks, Instagram and Vogue) and they are not.

Yet, we live in a world where we have more access to healthcare than ever before. Our basic needs are becoming cheaper. We have a supercomputer in our pocket and the world’s knowledge at our fingertips. Through a different lens, the world looks much better.

 

Conclusion

We’ve had a great evening with an energising discussion about extinction risks. In the end, we took a closer look at our own psychology and looked at how we view the world. Everyone took something home and by discussing the topic things became clearer.

Want to join us for another evening? Feel free to come over and bring a friend! Please check out our Meetup Page.

 

 

Questions from me:

  • How do you feel about the future? Scared straight? Optimistic? Realistic?
  • And how are you preparing or preventing?

The Left Hand of Darkness

The Left Hand of Darkness – Ursula Le Guin

An interesting book that first didn’t grab my attention (lots of jargon and names) but which later on proved to be interesting to listen to. Here is my analysis of the story structure.

1. You (situation, comfort)

Genli Ai is the protagonist. She is an ambassador (envoy) from a new planet. This planet is full of people who don’t have a single sex (but can become either once every 28 days). He (although the book is narrated by a woman, so sometimes you forget that, and that might be part of the experience of the book) wants…

2. Need (want something)

… to get the states of the world (Gethen) to join the alliance/federation of planets.

3. Go (new situation)

He talks to the king and is in a place he can’t call home.

4. Search (progress, adapt)

He has to travel the planet and talk to many people. The same goes for his friend (the former prime minister). And Genli learns a lot about how they live and interact. The end is foreshadowed by fore-tellers.

5. Find (no turning back)

After much struggle there is a plan to get the ship to land and the world to join the federation.

6. Take (trouble, pay a price)

But the road there is a long struggle and his friend dies.

7. Return (go back to where it started)

He returns to the capital and finalises his plan.

8. Change (now capable of change)

He is changed by his experience. And the world there is also about to change.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Sticking with the last sci-fi review of Speaker for the Dead, here is another analysis of a classic of the sci-fi literature. An analysis of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein.

 

1. You (situation, comfort)

We’re on the moon. And we’re following the adventures of Manuel (“Manny”), a supercomputer (Mike), and their rebel friends. The introduction does a great job of describing where we are, what is different from ‘our’ world and not focus too much on the logistics of a moon colony.

2. Need (want something)

Manny needs to break free from the Warden (the local authority figure). He wants to live free. A secret organisation is started.

3. Go (new situation)

Government is overthrown.

4. Search (progress, adapt)

Now they have to scramble to become a state in their own right.

5. Find (no turning back)

They go to earth to try and convince others they are the real thing. This phase (5) is the opposite of the start (1) and true in every way. They are not on the moon anymore, they are being diplomats (not technicians).

6. Take (trouble, pay a price)

The world isn’t listening to diplomatic channels. So a raid and bombings are on the way.  “There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!”.

7. Return (go back to where it started)

Finally, earth recognizes their independence. They are cheered on by the crowds on the moon.

8. Change (now capable of change)

Manny withdraws from politics. Mike stops talking. They are now a free state, but some things are just the same again.

Solve for Happy

Solve for Happy by Mo Gawdat is a book that delighted at times, full of anecdotes and very frustrating at other times. It’s a book that describes a mans search for happiness after his son suddenly dies in a car accident. It’s a book that is very personal yet also full of references to scientific literature. It’s a book that speaks many truths that we might forget in the busyness of that thing we call life.

Formula for Happiness

Here it is, the formula for happiness. Happiness = your perception of events in your life – your expectations of life. That’s it, easy as that. Life plays itself out in your head, it’s a battle between what you expect and what you get. If you get more than you expect, you are happy. If you get less than you expect, you are unhappy. It’s the thoughts that make us unhappy (and it’s the thing we can change) and not the events.

Most of our suffering is useless. Physical pain is very bad and really hurts. But most pain we experience is the pain we give ourselves. It’s unnecessary and leads to nowhere. So, in this moment, choose not to suffer. Choose to be happy. Accept life for what it is, and embrace it.

6 Illusions, 7 Blind spots, 5 Truths

Gawdat wants to teach us that between us and happiness, there are a few obstacles. And I couldn’t agree more with his analysis of the illusions we keep on telling ourselves.

  • Thought: You are not the thoughts you’re thinking. You can (with some restrictions) control what you’re thinking.
  • Self: You’re also not your body. Or emotions. Or heritage. Or religion. Or name. Or past performances. Or your things. You’re the observer, the person who sees it all. “In a world without an ego, where it doesn’t matter how everyone else sees us, we will do our utter best and get the results without caring what others think.
  • Knowledge: You’re not what you know. What we know is just an approximation of the ‘real’ truths. There are many unknown unknowns still to be discovered. Real knowledge is knowing what you don’t know (Confucius).
  • Time: Mechanical (minutes/hours/etc) time is made by man. Happy emotions are linked to the now, bad thoughts are linked to the past and future. If you want to be happy, live in the now.
  • Control: You’re not in control of your life. Unexpected events (black swans LINK TALEB?) rule our lives. Don’t expect control, but do your best anyway (take responsibility).
  • Fear: Admit that you have fear, then face it. If you hide from fear, it will only breed more fear, anger, hate, and suffering. What is the worst that can happen (LINK TIM FERRIS TALK)?

 

Our blind spots have helped us as a species for the last few million years. See a leaf move, think tiger, survive. Acting on a possible threat was a good strategy. But in our ‘normal’ day-to-day, there is no need for these blind spots anymore.

  • Filters: Your brain filters out much information, otherwise it would be overloaded.
  • Assumptions: Our assumptions are nothing more than a story our brain makes, not reality.
  • Predictions: Predictions are only stories made by our brain about the future.
  • Memories: Your memories are only a reflection of how you see the past (they are far removed from facts).
  • Judgements: You judge before you know the whole situation (thus preventing you from making a correct assessment).
  • Emotions: Our perception of reality is clouded by irrational emotions.
  • Exaggerations: We have an availability heuristic and exaggerate what we see.

 

It’s not reality that shapes us, it’s the lens through which we see the world. So let’s take a look at how to better look at our world.

  • Now: When people were asked what they were thinking about (past, now, future), results show consistently that they are happier when they’re living the moment. Connecting with others in the present is one of the best things to do. To get to the now, you have to stop doing other things (e.g. thinking). Stop doing, just be. Be here in the moment, that is where life is happening.
  • Change: Change is the only thing we can predict with certainty. So go with the flow, know what you can influence, let other things go. Find the way of least resistance. Be more grateful, less greedy (or ambitious).
  • Love: Unconditional love is one of the most beautiful and universal things you can offer the world. The true happiness of love is to give love. The more you give, the more you get back. Love yourself (self-compassion). What you give, you get back many fold (also see Give & Take by Adam Grant). Choose to be nice, not right.
  • Death: Everyday we’re dying a little (it’s a process, not an event). Without death, there would be no life. When our body dies, the memories of you can stay for centuries. Death is unavoidable, life is now. So live before you die.
  • Design: So here is where my opinions differ from Gawdat. He argues that life on this planet could not have come to fruition in any other way than by design. There must be a creator for all this to work. I would argue that life has come out of this randomness. And yes we don’t exactly know how, but you don’t need a creator to explain the processes by which evolution, human interactions, and the individual processes are moving.

Analysis of Rick & Morty – Ricksy Business & A Rickle in Time (Series)

Season 1 episode 11 Rick & Morty – Ricksy Business

1. You (situation, comfort)

Beth and Jerry leave the house. Everything should be normal.

Beth and Jerry arrive at the Titanic theme park.

2. Need (want something)

Summer wants to throw a party. Rick too.

Jerry wants to see the Titanic.

3. Go (new situation)

The party is in full swing.

Jerry and ‘Rose’ have fun on the Titanic.

4. Search (progress, adapt)

Party escalates.

Jerry goes on.

5. Find (no turning back)

Morty has a connection with Jessica.

Jerry has a bit of fun.

6. Take (trouble, pay a price)

And whoops, consequence. The party has moved to another planet. Now they have to get out of there.

And whoops, ‘Rose’ strips naked and wants (opposite of 2) Jerry.

7. Return (go back to where it started)

Crystals have been found (which were not there to escape XD). Rick

Beth comes to save Jerry.

8. Change (now capable of change)

Rick stops time. Time to clean house, like nothing happened.

Beth and Jerry go back home, leave the titanic things there.

 

 

Season 2 episode 1 Rick & Morty – A Rickle in Time

1. You (situation, comfort)

The normal Rick & Morty setting. House.

Beth and Jerry are there too.

2. Need (want something)

Try and keep shit together.

Get ice cream.

3. Go (new situation)

Multi-universe.

Hit a dear.

4. Search (progress, adapt)

Rick tries to get it back together. Doesn’t work.

Want to help the dear. Hunter claims the dear is his to kill.

5. Find (no turning back)

Makes a solution (button).

Fixing the horse.

6. Take (trouble, pay a price)

And the universe splits again.

Rick locked up.

OR Space monster fixes it and wants to put them into prison.

Difficult to fix the dear. Beth needs to admit she couldn’t do it.

7. Return (go back to where it started)

Space creature fixes it for them.

OR Rick finally fixes it.

Fixing dear.

8. Change (now capable of change)

There is no God. Everything fine again.

Back home.

Speaker for the Dead

Something different this time. Instead of a short review, an analysis of the story structure of the most recent sci-fi book I’ve read. The book in question is Speaker for the Dead by Orson Scott Card. It’s partly based on this essay/guide by Dan Harmon.

 

1. You (situation, comfort)

This part is for establishing the protagonist. This takes a while because we first get a deep dive into the world (which is maybe partly the protagonist, in an abstract way). There we follow two people who will later on die. Ender, the main character, only arrives (literally) later on.

It does establish the world we are living in (how long after Enders’ Game), which planet, what species.

2. Need (want something)

The thing that is not perfect is that the piggies (the other species on the planet) and humans need to live together. And change is happening, piggies are learning.

At the same time, a need is that for Ender (as Speaker for the Dead) to come speak the death of the xenobiologists. This is the actual call for adventure.

3. Go (new situation)

Ender is on his way in his spaceship. He has crossed the threshold, said goodbye to his life-friend (his sister). Or the go could be at the killing of the first xenobiologist.

The story goes from peace/observation to action and possible conflict.

4. Search (progress, adapt)

How can we communicate with the piggies? What story needs to be told here? Why were the xenobiologists killed? Who can we trust? Ender and others go on a search for the truth.

5. Find (no turning back)

Ender meets with the piggies.

6. Take (trouble, pay a price)

Congress (world government) is not happy. Rebel or sentence two people to years in prison. Option 1 is chosen. They meet with the female piggies.

Ender gets things done. Negotiates with the three living species and finds a way to get everything rolling.

7. Return (go back to where it started)

A new peace is established after much negotiation.

Ender gets his sister involved. They are a team again.

8. Change (now capable of change)

Truth has been found. The sermons have been spoken. The team is back together (with some new friends).

EA Meetup – 10 January 2018

On Wednesday the 10th of January 2018 the EA Rotterdam group hosted one of their monthly introductory meetups.

 

If you want to visit an EA Rotterdam event, visit our Meetup page.

 

Two Altruists

The meetup started with an introduction to Effective Altruism (see this great video by Peter Singer). We quickly agreed that whilst there is still much uncertainty, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take action. At the meeting, there were two people very actively involved in altruism. Both wanted to know what that whole ‘effective’ thing was all about.

Our first altruist was a volunteer with a project that helped people with placemaking through gardening. Next to making your neighbourhood look nice the project also aims to help people with depression and mental illness. But now that the economy is doing better, the municipality of Rotterdam is thinking: Hey, what is the impact here? Can’t we use this space for industrial purposes?

We discussed how far this impact is actually measured, how measurable it even is, and how you could measure it against other projects. From the municipality, I could find this evaluation. It explicitly says “In this research, we didn’t try and measure the effects”. So, there is still something to be gained here.

Our second altruist works for an organisation that promotes sustainable trade. It is not a development aid organisation. It, instead, works together with 100 of the largest companies in the world who control many (if not most) of the supply chains in the world. His organisation tries to combine/find a balance between profit and sustainability. The goal of the organisation is to introduce more sustainable practices (which may also result in better outcomes for the people there).

One cornerstone of effective altruism is already being practised. They start projects based on if it’s neglected or not. So if 10 other organisations are already working on sustainable coffee, they won’t jump in there too. They also look to work only with big organisations who see corporate social responsibility (CRS) as a must and not as window dressing.

But are the problems also solvable? What is the impact of this organisation? The ministry of foreign affairs (MinBuZa) has given this organisation 100 million over a period of 5 years. And in their evaluation, the following phrase was used “likely a marginal impact achieved”. That does make you question if the goals are being achieved, at reasonable costs. We did finally discuss that more senior people at the multinational companies are getting involved, it is something they are taking seriously.

 

Further Discussion

After that critical look, we also talked about Fair Trade. Is it smart to buy products that have this label? This is what William MacAskill has to say in Doing Good Better: “In buying Fairtrade products, you’re at best giving very small amounts of money to people in comparatively well-off countries. You’d do considerably more good by buying cheaper goods and donating the money you save to one of the cost-effective charities mentioned in the previous chapter.”

Our own conclusion was that the local farmers may see a benefit from such programs and that this may even lead to other springboard effects later on. But we did agree that it’s probably not the most effective way when you look dollar for dollar. A final question was posed “But would you donate the money you saved by buying cheaper groceries?”. I think most people can answer that with a solid no.

One participant was interested in effective altruism and politics. What is the advise there? I didn’t have an answer at that moment, I did only know that there was a lot of uncertainty involved in politics as a career path. Here is an overview of the blogs that 80000hours has written about the topic. And I would especially recommend this article. It states that chances of success (making up high in the politics career ladder) are low, but that your (positive) impact may be very large.

A final question was asked about donating to EA organisations itself, is that effective? I stated that every €1 invested there (Giving What We Can) results in moving €6 to a high-priority intervention. And luckily that is backed up by the data. Here is an overview of why to donate to EA organisations.

 

Thank you all for being there. If you want to meet us, please check out our Meetup Page.