I fully agree with you Dain and was thinking the same.

 I'd love to see us apply the "presumption of innocence" principle, to all living beings (and I like what you say about the objects!)! It could for example be a "presumption of worthiness". 

Because, we are after all natural beings, relying on Nature to live, and on its balance to be preserved. 

I think this the beauty of the natural world we live in, it requires us to figure out how to live in harmony together, for us to have a future (assuming a natural future, not an anatural one).

Doesn't this make all lives (and maybe objects?), naturally worthy of respect and dignity?

Thank you!

I fully agree with you Ted! and we definitely need to redefine what growth means, looking at circular economy models (like the doughnut) and also truly start living with a way of managing our global natural resources equally. This, in my mind will be the determining factor of quality of life in the coming decades, as our population will keep on increasing and natural resources are not developing as fast (I include our own resilience in this).

Is there anyone working on global natural resources management?

Hi! thank you for this essay. I fully agree with the idea of triage and that we are all responsible for the choices we make, and don't make. Consciously and unconsciously.

I felt quite a strong shaming tone at the end of the article which I don't believe is necessary to home in your point. 

I do appreciate the underlying message and the necessity to say it clearly.

Thanks

Thank you! I found it helpful to put words on these intangible biases. I wonder how AI could help in the future, in that field of decision making and resource allocation. In a way that removes our human biases both on scales of the issues and perceived importance.

Hi. Thank you for this different and thought provoking essay!

I really like the concept of care-o-meter and it not being able to properly size the scale of all our problems.

Which I can definitely see how true that is, otherwise our mind would overload.

the point that I would question is about "our feelings lie to us" in section 7. I don't think that's true. Our feelings have no "motivations" to hinder us or our development. Our feelings are here to guide us and to be like an inner-outer alignment tool. In my mind, we need to develop a relationship of curiosity and partnership with ourselves (including our feelings), to be able to contribute widely and be effectively altruistic. Whilst acknowledging the limitations that we have. Such as the scope insensitivity that you mention. 

I see it more as a fact that our body, brain, mind, haven't evolved at the same rate than our world has and this can create some misalignment/misinterpretation. Such as to accurately estimate the scale of an issue or the level of actual threats vs perceived threats.

So, I would highly encourage us to hear what our feelings tell us (as they are our fuel for action) whilst adding the filter of reality check, to make up for our own limitations.

Hope that makes sense.

I like this part too. I think that the way we convey facts and the story makes all the difference at how we will feel and how likely we are to do anything about the issue at hand.

I might be saying something very controversial here but I wonder how do we know what a "cruel world is"?, or a "normal world"?, or a "fair world is"? I don't disagree with the argument about saving as many children as possible (I have 2 myself). I honestly wonder where is the line between the natural balance of species - that allows all species to have enough space and resources on our planet to live (and not only our human species) - and unfairness/cruel and efforts that we should put in. 

I don't have the answer, but it has been on my mind as well. Our planet has a limited caring capacity and natural resources. We all need nature and other species to survive. Therefore at some point, if we all strive to increase our life span and resources, we will have another issue of massive starvation/water shortage/natural resources/space shortage ect.

I know it's not a popular argument but in the spirit of the effective altruism principles I would be interested to hear different views on how to balance these two aspects: of saving as many lives as possible and our finite earth carrying capacity.

Having said that, this question really clashes with my own values and my deep want to live in a world that have equal rights and quality of life throughout the world.

Thank you.

Thank you for these 4 ideas / values which I fully agree with and I love the idea of not only agreeing with them in theory but actually living them fully. Two things that caught my attention are:

* "people are equal": Which I 100% agree and I would even go to Living Beings are equal. What would our world, our resources, our world's biggest problems be like if we considered ourselves and Nature as equal? I am aware that there are some details in what we consider living beings. And I would expect that even without having a perfect answer to that question, putting humans at the same levels than other beings, would help us make more ethical and moral decisions.

• Our resources are limited: I agree that time and money are limited and key considerations in what we prioritise. Equally, I wonder, what type of world and solutions would we prioritise if we also acknowledged that our natural resources are limited? such as water, food in some part of the world, natural energy, minerals, biomass etc. When I look at the amount of natural resources we use, carefree, to address climate change for examples, I think that a more honest look at the total cost of our solutions (natural, financial, human etc) is highly needed. Especially with the development of AI and the rate of technological innovation that is foreseen. It would seem like our moral responsibility to me too.

I would love to hear your views on these two points. Thank you!