{"items": [{"author": "Bil", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/10100111495094772?comment_id=10100111507973962", "anchor": "fb-10100111507973962", "service": "fb", "text": "I've said most of that to myself. :-)", "timestamp": "1568666553"}, {"author": "Julia", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/10100111495094772?comment_id=10100111507973962&reply_comment_id=10100111516551772", "anchor": "fb-10100111507973962_10100111516551772", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Oh man you should have seen the great Air Conditioning Debate of July 2019 at our house.", "timestamp": "1568670032"}, {"author": "Jim", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/10100111495094772?comment_id=10100111512125642", "anchor": "fb-10100111512125642", "service": "fb", "text": "Or move on to
https://mediamousearchive.wordpress.com/.../50-difficult.../", "timestamp": "1568668108"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/10100111495094772?comment_id=10100111512125642&reply_comment_id=10100111512494902", "anchor": "fb-10100111512125642_10100111512494902", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Jim I like the sprit, but I don't think most things on the list are actually a good idea", "timestamp": "1568668324"}, {"author": "Robert_Wiblin", "source_link": "https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/kRCoYCav8wcFoTxmx#WcZoH7DKt55cSBQCK", "anchor": "ea-WcZoH7DKt55cSBQCK", "service": "ea", "text": "The amount of electricity consumed by some appliances these days is astonishingly low.\n
The LED lightbulb in my room for example uses 9 Watts. If I left it on maximum brightness constantly for a whole year this would come to:\n
9 Watts * 24 hours per day * 365 days / 1000 = ~79kWh.\n
That would cost me 79kWh * 14.714p/kWh = \u00a312 in electricity for the year.\n
If supplied 100% by especially dirty coal this might produce 71kg of CO2.\n
This is a small amount which could be offset on the EU carbon trading market for about \u00a31.80.\n
While also not worth fussing much too about, at least heating systems and air conditioners do use a meaningful amount of energy! Get your house insulated and then don't sweat about the rest.\n", "timestamp": 1568668552}, {"author": "johnswentworth", "source_link": "https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/osYpTFChRr9Rq4m8i#su5GMLRyKTaFjm7qS", "anchor": "lw-su5GMLRyKTaFjm7qS", "service": "lw", "text": "I wrote a piece last year about the general version of this problem, which I called the epsilon fallacy: optimizing choices with small impact on the objective, without thinking about opportunity costs or trade-offs.", "timestamp": 1568670914}, {"author": "Andrew", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/10100111495094772?comment_id=10100111525623592", "anchor": "fb-10100111525623592", "service": "fb", "text": "Also, the increased decision fatigue that come from having to figure out ways around constraints.", "timestamp": "1568674420"}, {"author": "Rob", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/10100111495094772?comment_id=10100111527215402", "anchor": "fb-10100111527215402", "service": "fb", "text": "My comment copied from the EA Forum: The amount of electricity consumed by some appliances these days is astonishingly low.
The LED lightbulb in my room for example uses 9 Watts. If I left it on maximum brightness constantly for a whole year this would come to:
9 Watts * 24 hours per day * 365 days / 1000 = ~79kWh.
That would cost me 79kWh * 14.714p/kWh = \u00a312 in electricity for the year.
If supplied 100% by especially dirty coal this might produce 71kg of CO2.
This is a small amount which could be offset on the EU carbon trading market for about \u00a31.80.
While also not worth fussing much too about, at least heating systems and air conditioners do use a meaningful amount of energy! Get your house insulated and then don't sweat about the rest.", "timestamp": "1568675665"}, {"author": "Phillip", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/10100111495094772?comment_id=10100111527215402&reply_comment_id=10100111638207972", "anchor": "fb-10100111527215402_10100111638207972", "service": "fb", "text": "→ Also get a condensing boiler furnace. I strongly recommend Viessmann. That is the kind of thing that actually can make a significant difference. If you're building consider radiant heat. I know a home owner who combined these two thing (and yes it was expensive to retrofit radiant) with new windows and insulation to cut their heating bill by 90% (and no that didn't happen all at once, and they had some high end experts).", "timestamp": "1568755375"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1568678045"}, {"author": "Christopher", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/10100111495094772?comment_id=10100111530374072&reply_comment_id=10100111605024472", "anchor": "fb-10100111530374072_10100111605024472", "service": "fb", "text": "→ \"the usual way to solve coordination problems is by government regulation\". Actually, it's through social customs and pressures. corporations also are a means to solve coordination problems.
while I agree that government coercion sometimes is the only effective way to achieve drastic collaboration that is essential to survival, it is far from the usual or expected first route to take. And any argument that government coercion is unavoidable bears a high burden of proof.", "timestamp": "1568738798"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "→ this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1568777661"}, {"author": "Victor", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/10100111495094772?comment_id=10100111560214272", "anchor": "fb-10100111560214272", "service": "fb", "text": "Exactly!", "timestamp": "1568693296"}, {"author": "Itsnotme", "source_link": "https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/osYpTFChRr9Rq4m8i#RSErcFbzSjoHR9iD3", "anchor": "lw-RSErcFbzSjoHR9iD3", "service": "lw", "text": "Eyeballing at a EU report chart, it looks like the reduction of carbon output in Europe is mostly due to changes in energy production (in millions of tonns, ca 490 less in 2016 compared to 1990) and manufacturing industries (370 less), but another 650 reduction comes from the little things combined (households, institutions, waste management, agriculture, fuels, industrial processes and product use, commerce, fugitive emissions). So, most of our focus should be on energy, but it does't look overly bad for the small things either. Of cause, if you zoom in on one really small intervention, like refusing straws in drinks, its impact will be very very low... Probably not worth it if it has any cost to you at all.", "timestamp": 1568712387}, {"author": "philh", "source_link": "https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/osYpTFChRr9Rq4m8i#TgXKphSQci94xnHhb", "anchor": "lw-TgXKphSQci94xnHhb", "service": "lw", "text": "→ I'm surprised that you list agriculture and industrial processes under \"little things\".\n", "timestamp": 1568991046}, {"author": "notjaelkoh", "source_link": "https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/osYpTFChRr9Rq4m8i#wAik36PDKyJ4st6zK", "anchor": "lw-wAik36PDKyJ4st6zK", "service": "lw", "text": "deleted
", "timestamp": 1568751543}, {"author": "Donald Hobson", "source_link": "https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/osYpTFChRr9Rq4m8i#kmoNr5SDQsDpeQtZP", "anchor": "lw-kmoNr5SDQsDpeQtZP", "service": "lw", "text": "If we stop doing something that almost all first world humans are doing (say 1 billion people), then our impact will be about a billionth of the size of the problem. Given the size of impact that an effective altruist can hope to have, this tells us why non actions don't have super high utilities in comparison. If there were 100 000 effective altruists (probably an overestimate), This would mean that all effective altruists refraining from doing X, would make the problem 0.01% better. Both how hard it is to refrain, and the impact if you manage it depend on the problem size, all pollution vs plastic straws. Assuming that this change took only 0.01% of the effective altruists time. (10 seconds per day, 4 of which you are asleep for). Clearly this change has to be something as small as avoiding plastic straws, of smaller. Assume linearity in work and reward, the normal assumption being diminishing returns. This makes the payoff equivalent to all effective altruists working full time on solving the problem, and solving it.
Technically, you need to evaluate the marginal value of one more effective altruist. If it was vitally important that someone worked on AI, but you have far more people than you need to do that, and the rest are twiddling their thumbs, get them reusing straws (Actually get them looking for other cause areas, reusing straws only makes sense if you are confidant that no other priority causes exist)
Suppose omega came to you and said that if you started a compostable straw buisness, there was an 0.001% chance of success, by which omega means solving the problem without any externalities. (The straws are the same price, just as easy to use, don't taste funny ect.) Otherwise, the buisness will waste all your time and do nothing.
If this doesn't seem like a promising opportunity for effective altruism, don't bother with reusable straws either. In general the chance of success is 1/( Number of people using plastic straws X Proportion of time wasted avoiding them )", "timestamp": 1568763161}, {"author": "notjaelkoh", "source_link": "https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/osYpTFChRr9Rq4m8i#GSrwcDHtAjexSiwiA", "anchor": "lw-GSrwcDHtAjexSiwiA", "service": "lw", "text": "deleted
", "timestamp": 1568776580}, {"author": "elle", "source_link": "https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/kRCoYCav8wcFoTxmx#JM4f6WhHcYvPPSso8", "anchor": "ea-JM4f6WhHcYvPPSso8", "service": "ea", "text": "I broadly agree with this article, but some part of me felt... uncomfortable?... with the topic. So I tried to give voice to that part of me. Very uncertain about this, and it is a bit confusing. --I think we often build up pictures/stories of ourselves based on our regular habits/ actions. If I exercise every day, I start to think of myself as athletic/ healthy/ strong. If I wipe the counters in the kitchen, it contributes to my sense of responsibility/ care-taking/ cleanliness. If I do X that I believe is wasteful (i.e. common opinion says that X is wasteful and I have not seen any analyses that disprove the common opinion), I think of myself as a more selfish/ wasteful/ immoral person. It seems easier for people to build up stories around actions that are direct/ concrete/ tangible/ etc. For example, I hear there are GiveWell employees who feel like their work is so removed from outcomes that it is difficult to feel motivated. Even though GiveWell does much more "direct work" than most of us will ever do! I think actions we feel are present/ close/ non-abstract/ non-alienating/ etc. may influence our self-identity significantly.Negative self-images, if they get too strong, can be debilitating. At the very least, they are not fun. Often, to avoid negative self-image, we develop stories about why it's "OK" to be wasteful, even if we would not want everyone else to be. Stories such as "my time is super valuable."Stories matter. If you attain a position of power, they influence what actions you take with that power. And stories interact and compound. For example, my feeling guilty about being wasteful can lead to a reinforcement of the belief that my time is valuable. Believing that my time is really valuable can lead to me making more wasteful decisions. Decisions like: "It is totally fine for me to buy all these expensive ergonomic keyboards simultaneously on Amazon and try them out, then throw away whichever ones do not work for me." Or "I will buy this expensive exercise equipment on a whim to test out. Even if I only use it once and end up trashing it a year later, it does not matter."The thinking in the examples above worries me. People are bad at reasoning about when to make exceptions to rules like "try to behave in non-wasteful ways", especially when the exception is personally beneficial. And I think each exception can weaken your broader narrative about what you value and who you are.I think I want people to default towards the common-sense, non-wasteful actions (as long as the cost feels pretty low to them), until they have read or made a well-reasoned case that the action is not wasteful in the way common opinion indicates (e.g., I liked Rob's article that complicates our narrative around recycling: https://medium.com/@robertwiblin/what-you-think-about-landfill-and-recycling-is-probably-totally-wrong-3a6cf57049ce). I suspect that this approach will lead to a reinforcement of narratives/ values that seem good to me. ", "timestamp": 1568918898}, {"author": "Raemon", "source_link": "https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/kRCoYCav8wcFoTxmx#G4j2bewACmdpXsrFs", "anchor": "ea-G4j2bewACmdpXsrFs", "service": "ea", "text": "→ Believing that my time is really valuable can lead to me making more wasteful decisions. Decisions like: "It is totally fine for me to buy all these expensive ergonomic keyboards simultaneously on Amazon and try them out, then throw away whichever ones do not work for me." Or "I will buy this expensive exercise equipment on a whim to test out. Even if I only use it once and end up trashing it a year later, it does not matter."...The thinking in the examples above worries me. People are bad at reasoning about when to make exceptions to rules like "try to behave in non-wasteful ways", especially when the exception is personally beneficial. And I think each exception can weaken your broader narrative about what you value and who you are.
I was brought up in a family that was very pro-don't-waste, and I've had an a lengthy shift towards "actually, 'not wasting'" just isn't very important. It's more of a carry-over from a time when a) humanity had a lot less ability to produce stuff, b) humanity had worse landfill technology than we have now."
Insofar as we do produce too much waste, it's mostly at a corporate/organizational level than something that makes sense for individuals to prioritize.
It's not that I think people should be making exceptions to rules like 'try to behave in non-wasteful ways', it's that I mostly now think that 'don't be wasteful' wasn't that useful a core-rule in the first place.
(Among my cruxes here are a belief that landfill technology has improved since the era when 'don't waste' and 'recycle' memes took off, as well as a shift towards 'thinking broadly about having a high impact is much more important than individual local decisions.'
Past me (and perhaps you) might be suspicious of the 'landfill technology is actually good enough that this isn't that big a deal', perhaps rightly so because it's a kinda suspiciously-convenient belief. I don't have arguments-at-the-ready that'd have convinced past me, so mostly just laying out my current reasoning without expecting it to be that persuasive at the moment)", "timestamp": 1569012978}, {"author": "Khorton", "source_link": "https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/kRCoYCav8wcFoTxmx#MGmvzwr22LPCh63WN", "anchor": "ea-MGmvzwr22LPCh63WN", "service": "ea", "text": "→ I agree that everyday actions shape our self-perception. I don't believe this has to be all-or-nothing. I have a lot of friends who pride themselves on not being wasteful, but don't know how to sew and won't patch up old clothes. This habit of throwing out holey clothes doesn't stop them from eating the leftovers in their fridge or spending their money carefully.\n
There are a lot of small actions we can do to improve the world. Many of these will also reinforce our identities as caring and thoughtful people. In that sense, they're helpful and aspiring EAs should continue doing them.\n
However, I don't think EA as a community should promote these small actions, unless they're particularly cost-effective. I think prioritising a list of, say, 15 small actions counts as promoting them, because people might feel like they should adopt the top small actions, when actually I think people should just keep doing what they're doing and focus on big wins.\n", "timestamp": 1569037899}, {"author": "lucy.ea8", "source_link": "https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/kRCoYCav8wcFoTxmx#CXKJCTvGGevfj22oc", "anchor": "ea-CXKJCTvGGevfj22oc", "service": "ea", "text": "How our societies are structured makes a huge difference. Europeans* have half the CO2 footprint as Americans. I assume they have roughly similar quality of life and happiness.\n
*I understand Europe is not a monolith, this is just rule of thumb thinking\n", "timestamp": 1568948721}, {"author": "ishi", "source_link": "https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/kRCoYCav8wcFoTxmx#8ab6DgXYbDAkKiYan", "anchor": "ea-8ab6DgXYbDAkKiYan", "service": "ea", "text": "I can sort of relate to this, but its a very complex situation. I remember growing up in an opld house in need of repairs it was often decided 'we would to the work ourselves' rather than hire someone (ie save some money and that helped pay for my college education, some trips to the country, etc). But it would take us 3 days to fix something (eg electrical, plumbing, concrete, roofing) which an expert could do in 1/2 a day.
Also at times very small amounts of savings are a major difference. If you decide to spend more money on some electronic or musical device ( i'm somewhat into music so i often have to decide whether to try to fix what i have or buy something new) you then may not have busfare. So then since you have to walk you will get an 'adventure' --might have to go through some bad weather or dangerous areas.
(I have noticed many good quality modern electrical appliances are both cheap on energy use, and sturdy; but sometimes if you save a little money and get a lower quality one , they break in a short period so you need a new one).
In my spare time for entertainment i try to come up with simple mathematical formalisms ('fermi calculations') to handle these cost/benefit calculations , but i rapidly realize to really handle them you need something like tensor analyses or modern variants (category theory) since you dealing with so many variables. ", "timestamp": 1569309878}, {"author": "bdixon", "source_link": "https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/kRCoYCav8wcFoTxmx#mqkYPqTkyx3Fzx3X8", "anchor": "ea-mqkYPqTkyx3Fzx3X8", "service": "ea", "text": "You might find this book chapter interesting - 'Twenty-Seven Thoughts About Multiple Selves, Sustainable Consumption, and Human Evolution' by Geoffrey Miller. ", "timestamp": 1569336166}, {"author": "aarongertler", "source_link": "https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/kRCoYCav8wcFoTxmx#DS8PRkkRCHsvK2NH4", "anchor": "ea-DS8PRkkRCHsvK2NH4", "service": "ea", "text": "→ I think people would be more likely to read the chapter if you had another sentence or two on what it was about (this is a good rule of thumb for links on the Forum).", "timestamp": 1569480492}, {"author": "Nathan Young", "source_link": "https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/kRCoYCav8wcFoTxmx#8oeTkPqoufmkXztDB", "anchor": "ea-8oeTkPqoufmkXztDB", "service": "ea", "text": "I think this view is correct but I would think about how I expressed it.
If someone was sharing advice like this, they care about the future of humanity. Telling them they are making bad choices might put them off. Rather I would want to encourage them and suggest some of the highest impact interventions.
It's easy to come across as superior particularly to people who are trying to make the world better. This would be harmful.", "timestamp": 1569404513}, {"author": "SoerenMind", "source_link": "https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/kRCoYCav8wcFoTxmx#n7qvkp6YjinaK4JbZ", "anchor": "ea-n7qvkp6YjinaK4JbZ", "service": "ea", "text": "Like most commenters, I broadly agree with the empirical info here. It's sort of obvious, but telling others things like "don't go out of your way to use less plastic" or even just creating unnecessary waste in a social situation can be inconsiderate towards people's sensibilities. Of course, this post advocates no such thing but I want to be sure nobody goes away thinking these things are necessarily OK.
(I was recently reminded of a CEA research article about how considerateness is even more important than most people think, and EAs should be especially careful because their behavior reflects on the whole community.)", "timestamp": 1569454996}]}