Podcasts about tomasik

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Fishing-aquaculture substitution and aquafeeds, published by MichaelStJules on June 3, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Key takeaways Various fishing-related interventions and aquafeed-related interventions (e.g. supporting fishmeal substitutes) can have important effects on animal agriculture, and there are potentially important tradeoffs to consider. I graph the relationships between various foods and feeds, and provide background on them. Focusing on the impacts on farmed animals, the most important takeaways are probably the following: 1. Increasing the catch of wild aquatic animals for feed, increasing the utilization of aquatic animal byproducts for feed, increasing/improving non-animal fishmeal substitutes or pushing for lower fishmeal requirements (promoting herbivorous species, R&D to reduce fishmeal inclusion rates) per farmed aquatic animal 1. is likely to increase aquaculture (Costello et al., 2020, Section 4, Figure S2 and Tables S13-S16; Kobayashi et al., 2015, Table 3 / World Bank, 2013, Table E.2; Bairagi et al., 2015, Table 1 / Bairagi, 2015), including shrimp aquaculture in particular, as they are major fishmeal-consuming species. 2. is likely to decrease insect farming, by reducing the need for or the relative appeal of insects as a fishmeal substitute. 3. has unclear effects on the use of live brine shrimp nauplii and other live feed for crustacean larvae, and fish larvae, fry and fingerlings. I have not investigated this, but it's worth flagging the possibilities of complementation and substitution. 4. Conversely, decreasing the catch of wild aquatic animals for feed is likely to decrease aquaculture and increase insect farming, but has unclear effects on brine shrimp nauplii and other live feed. 2. Decreasing the catch of wild aquatic animals for food (direct human consumption) has unclear impacts on farmed (and bred) animals. 1. By substitution, it would probably increase aquaculture (and other animal agriculture) overall by weight, but this may not say much about numbers or welfare impacts, given shifts between farmed species. 2. It could increase (by substitution) or decrease (by reducing the availability of fishmeal from fish/crustacean byproducts) shrimp farming and the farming of other animal-consuming species. This could also then respectively increase or decrease insect, feed fish and/or brine shrimp nauplii production for feed. 3. It would also reduce fishmeal from byproducts, which could increase insect farming. 4. The effects on fish stocking depend on how the reduction is achieved. If achieved through an increase in overfishing, fish stocking could increase. If achieved through a reduction in fishing pressure where fishing pressures are already low, fish stocking could decrease. This would have an effect on brine shrimp nauplii production in the same direction as that on fish stocking, assuming brine shrimp nauplii are fed to fish raised for stocking. Note that demand shifts for wild-caught animals can have the opposite sign effects on their catch due to overfishing (St. Jules, 2024a). The above considers the actual quantities supplied directly, not the effects of demand shifts. All of this also ignores the effects of shifts in food production on wild animals, both aquatic and terrestrial, which could be good or bad and more important in the near term (Tomasik, 2008-2019a, Tomasik, 2008-2019b, Tomasik, 2015-2017, St. Jules, 2024b). Acknowledgements Thanks to Brian Tomasik, Ren Ryba and Tori for their feedback on an earlier draft, and Saulius Šimčikas for his supervision on an earlier unpublished project. All errors are my own. Relationships between products Fishing, aquaculture and other animal agriculture and breeding interact in multiple ways, as depicted in the figure below: 1. Fishing competes with animal agriculture and ani...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The moral ambiguity of fishing on wild aquatic animal populations, published by MichaelStJules on May 7, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Summary The net welfare effects of fishing, changes to fishing pressure and demand for wild-caught aquatic animals on wild aquatic animals seem highly morally ambiguous, in large part because there are 1. tradeoffs between species due to predation, e.g. larger (respectively smaller) populations and life expectancies for one species results in smaller (respectively larger) populations and life expectancies for their prey and competitors, and this cascades down the food chain, 2. uncertainty about moral weight tradeoffs between affected species, and 3. depending on the moral view, uncertainty about whether the directly and indirectly affected animals have good or bad lives on average. Acknowledgements Thanks to Brian Tomasik, Ren Ryba and Tori for their feedback on an earlier draft. All errors are my own. For prior related writing that is more comprehensive and suffering-focused, see Tomasik, 2015-2017. This piece focuses on population effects, overlapping largely with Tomasik, 2015. Population effects and welfare uncertainty Increasing the fishing of a species will tend to decrease their population, and decreasing their fishing will tend to increase their population, all else equal. For a given species, the marginal and average effects of fishing on the number of them alive at any time are typically at least several times greater than the effects on their annual catch under standard single-species fishery models.[1] With fishing deaths making up such a small share of a life on average, even if intense (although stunning during capture may be more widely used in the future), the effects on the size of the population and resulting welfare effects could be more ethically important than the effects on the number of fishing deaths. And then the effects on the populations could be morally ambiguous. First, it may be ambiguous whether the average individual has a good or bad life, so that reducing their population through fishing and increasing their population by reducing fishing could be morally ambiguous. Second, there are also population (and life expectancy) tradeoffs between species due to predation, with increasing the population of one species reducing the populations of its prey species.[2] Fishing reduces the populations of the directly fished species and (I'd normally guess) species up the food chain that depend on them,[3] while increasing the populations of the (unfished) prey (and competitors) of the directly fished species. But then the increased populations of the (unfished) prey (and competitors) may result in decreased populations for their prey. And so on. For example, Peruvian anchoveta, the species most wild-caught for feed and the most wild-caught fish species by numbers of individuals and tonnage (Mood & Brooke, 2024, Supplementary material 3, Supplementary material 6, Borthwick et al., 2021), primarily eat krill and copepods (Espinoza & Bertrand, 2008, Espinoza & Bertrand, 2014), so fishing Peruvian anchoveta presumably decreases Peruvian anchoveta populations but increases krill and copepod populations.[4] I illustrate with the effects of fishing on the fished pieces and their (unfished) prey: Fished animals have good lives Fished animals have bad lives Unfished prey have good lives Bad for fished animals Good for unfished prey Good for both Unfished prey have bad lives Bad for both Good for fished animals Bad for unfished prey Effects of fishing on fished animals and their unfished prey, in a simple model ignoring the rest of the food web. Fishing decreases the populations of the fished animal populations and increases the populations of their unfished prey, and these lives could be good or bad. Similarly, fi...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Sustainable fishing policy increases fishing, and demand reductions might, too, published by MichaelStJules on April 25, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Summary Where there's overfishing, reducing fishing pressure or harvest rates - roughly the share of the population or biomass caught in a fishery per fishing period - actually allows more animals to be caught in the long run. Sustainable fishery management policies are generally aimed at maximizing or maintaining high levels of catch - the biomass of wild aquatic animals caught - in the long run. More restrictive policies that would actually reduce long-run catch generally seem politically infeasible, and less restrictive policies that increase long-run catch don't seem like a stepping stone to more restrictive ones that decrease it. Demand reductions for wild-caught aquatic animals may increase or decrease actual catch, and it's very unclear which. My highly uncertain tentative best guesses are that they seem slightly more likely to increase than increase catch in the near term but bioeconomic "long run", e.g. over the next 10-20 years, and persistent demand reductions and cumulative work towards them seem slightly more likely to decrease than increase catch over longer timelines with more sustainable fishery management and eventual population decline, but it's not clear if and when catch would actually be consistently lower on average than otherwise. Acknowledgements Thanks to Brian Tomasik, Ren Ryba and Tori for their feedback, and Saulius Šimčikas for his supervision on an earlier unpublished project. All errors are my own. Basic terminology I use 'fishing' to include the capture of any wild aquatic animal, including crustaceans, not just fish. I refer to the long run (and long-run) in fishing as long enough for all production factors, including the number of boats/vessels, amount of fishing equipment, employment and the number of fishing companies or businesses to increase or decrease and approximately reach a new equilibrium in response to a permanent shift in prices, supply or demand. I'd expect this to typically be less than a decade. This is a standard term in economics. Introduction Reductions in fishing pressure or harvest rates - roughly the share of the population or biomass caught in a fishery per fishing period - can result from reductions in demand or from improvements in fishery management, like the use of quotas, smaller fishing net mesh sizes, seasonal closures or restrictions on fishing vessels or their numbers. However, these reductions can also lead to increases in catch where there's overfishing, by allowing stocks to recover, resulting in more fish to catch. Fishery management policies that preserve or increase stocks are also typically aimed at increasing long-run catch. If we're concerned with reducing total exploitation, injustice or harm caused by humans or moral/rational agents, then this would count against this kind of work (see also Tomasik, 2015, who made this point earlier). The same could hold for a (weighted) average level of exploitation, injustice or harm by humans across all animals or moral patients.[1][2] I don't personally take exploitation or harm by humans in particular to be worse than other types of harms, independently of their effects on subjective welfare,[3] but this seems to be a common position. Furthermore, harm caused by humans might matter more for indirect reasons related to subjective welfare in practice, tracking our willingness to help or make other sacrifices for other animals.[4] Or, if fishing deaths are particularly bad compared to natural deaths and will continue to be so (e.g. humane capture and humane slaughter won't become widespread), and bad enough to be worth preventing regardless of the population effects and effects on natural deaths, then...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: There are no massive differences in impact between individuals, published by Sarah Weiler on March 14, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Or: Why aiming for the tail-end in an imaginary social impact distribution is not the most effective way to do good in the world "It is very easy to overestimate the importance of our own achievements in comparison with what we owe others." attributed to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, quoted in Tomasik 2014(2017) Summary In this essay, I argue that it is not useful to think about social impact from an individualist standpoint. I claim that there are no massive differences in impact between individual interventions, individual organisations, and individual people, because impact is dispersed across all the actors that contribute to the outcomes before any individual action is taken, all the actors that contribute to the outcomes after any individual action is taken, and all the actors that shape the taking of any individual action in the first place. I raise some concerns around adverse effects of thinking about impact as an attribute that follows a power law distribution and that can be apportioned to individual agents: Such a narrative discourages actions and strategies that I consider highly important, including efforts to maintain and strengthen healthy communities; Such a narrative may encourage disregard for common-sense virtues and moral rules; Such a narrative may negatively affect attitudes and behaviours among elites (who aim for extremely high impact) as well as common people (who see no path to having any meaningful impact); and Such a narrative may disrupt basic notions of moral equality and encourage a differential valuation of human lives in accordance with the impact potential an individual supposedly holds. I then reflect on the sensibility and usefulness of apportioning impact to individual people and interventions in the first place, and I offer a few alternative perspectives to guide our efforts to do good effectively. In the beginning, I give some background on the origin of this essay, and in the end, I list a number of caveats, disclaimers, and uncertainties to paint a fuller picture of my own thinking on the topic. I highly welcome any feedback in response to the essay, and would also be happy to have a longer conversation about any or all of the ideas presented - please do not hesitate to reach out in case you would like to engage in greater depth than a mere Forum comment :)! Context I have developed and refined the ideas in the following paragraphs at least since May 2022 - my first notes specifically on the topic were taken after I listened to Will MacAskill talk about "high-impact opportunities" at the opening session of my first EA Global, London 2022. My thoughts on the topic were mainly sparked by interactions with the effective altruism community (EA), either in direct conversations or through things that I read and listened to over the last few years. However, I have encountered these arguments outside EA as well, among activists, political strategists, and "regular folks" (colleagues, friends, family). My journal contains many scattered notes, attesting to my discomfort and frustration with the - in my view, misguided - belief that a few individuals can (and should) have massive amounts of influence and impact by acting strategically. This text is an attempt to pull these notes together, giving a clear structure to the opposition I feel and turning it into a coherent argument that can be shared with and critiqued by others. Impact follows a power law distribution: The argument as I understand it "[T]he cost-effectiveness distributions of the most effective interventions and policies in education, health and climate change, are close to power-laws [...] the top intervention is 2 or almost 3 orders of magni...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: My favorite articles by Brian Tomasik and what they are about, published by Timothy Chan on February 25, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Cross-posted from my website. Introduction Brian Tomasik has written a lot of essays on reducing suffering. In this post, I've picked out my favorites. If you're thinking about reading his work, this list could be a good place to start. Note that this is based on what I personally find interesting; it is not a definitive guide. These are listed in no particular order. Dissolving Confusion about Consciousness Consciousness is a "cluster in thingspace" comprising physical systems that we consider to be similar in some way. It is a label for systems, not an essence within systems. Also, like defining "tables", defining "consciousness" may be similarly arbitrary and fuzzy. The Eliminativist Approach to Consciousness Instead of thinking in terms of "conscious" and "unconscious" we should directly focus on how physical systems work. Aspects of systems are not merely indicators of pain, but are part of the cluster of things that we call "pain" (attribute the label "pain"). Tomasik also draws parallels between eliminativism and panpsychism and highlights that there is a shared implication of both theories that there is no clear separation of consciousness with physical reality, which may further suggest that we should put more weight to ideas that less complex systems can suffer. How to Interpret a Physical System as a Mind Uses the concept of a "sentience classifier" to describe how we might interpret physical systems as minds. Distinct theories offer different approaches to building the classifier. Classification then involves "identifying the traits of the physical system in question" (taking in the data and searching for relevant features) as a first step and "mapping from those traits to high-level emotions and valences" (labeling the data) as a second step. Our brains might already be vaguely implementing the sentience classifier - albeit with more messiness, complexity, and components and processes particular to the brain. The Many Fallacies of Dualism This article touches on a common theme underlying Tomasik's approach to topics like consciousness, free will, moral (anti)realism, and mathematical (anti)realism: rejecting dualism in favor of a simpler physicalist monism. The Importance of Wild Animal Suffering A good introduction to the topic. Discusses the extensive suffering experienced by wild animals due to natural causes like disease, predation, and environmental hardships, which may outweigh moments of happiness. Vast numbers and short, brutal lives of wild animals make their suffering a significant ethical issue. Why Vegans Should Care about Suffering in Nature A shorter introduction to the topic. The Horror of Suffering A vivid reflection on the horror of suffering. Suffering is not merely an abstract concept but a dire reality that demands urgent moral attention. There is a long history of intuitions that prioritize the reduction of suffering. One Trillion Fish Short piece on the direct harms caused by large-scale fishing (though note that when taking into account population changes and wild-animal suffering, the sign of this is less clear). Suggests humane slaughter of fish as an intervention that side-steps the uncertainty of net impact of fishing on wild-animal suffering. How Does Vegetarianism Impact Wild-Animal Suffering? Note that there are likely more comprehensive analyses now. That animal suffering is increased in some ways because of a vegetarian/vegan diet is counterintuitive but important to recognize. You might still want to be vegetarian/vegan and not eat meat as it might help with becoming more motivated to reduce suffering. How Rainforest Beef Production Affects Wild-Animal Suffering Creating cattle pas...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Solution to the two envelopes problem for moral weights, published by MichaelStJules on February 19, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Summary When taking expected values, the results can differ radically based on which common units we fix across possibilities. If we normalize relative to the value of human welfare, then other animals will tend to be prioritized more than by normalizing by the value of animal welfare or by using other approaches to moral uncertainty. For welfare comparisons and prioritization between different moral patients like humans, other animals, aliens and artificial systems, I argue that we should fix and normalize relative to the moral value of human welfare, because our understanding of the value of welfare is based on our own experiences of welfare, which we directly value. Uncertainty about animal moral weights is about the nature of our experiences and to what extent other animals have capacities similar to those that ground our value, and so empirical uncertainty, not moral uncertainty ( more). I revise the account in light of the possibility of multiple different human reference points between which we don't have fixed uncertainty-free comparisons of value, like pleasure vs belief-like preferences (cognitive desires) vs non-welfare moral reasons, or specific instances of these. If and because whatever moral reasons we apply to humans, (similar or other) moral reasons aren't too unlikely to apply with a modest fraction of the same force to other animals, then the results would still be relatively animal-friendly ( more). I outline why this condition plausibly holds across moral reasons and theories, so that it's plausible we should be fairly animal-friendly ( more). I describe and respond to some potential objections: There could be inaccessible or unaccessed conscious subsystems in our brains that our direct experiences and intuitions do not (adequately) reflect, and these should be treated like additional moral patients ( more). The approach could lead to unresolvable disagreements between moral agents, but this doesn't seem any more objectionable than any other disagreement about what matters (more). Epistemic modesty about morality may push for also separately normalizing by the values of nonhumans or against these comparisons altogether, but this doesn't seem to particularly support the prioritization of humans ( more). I consider whether similar arguments apply in cases of realism vs illusionism about phenomenal consciousness, moral realism vs moral antirealism, and person-affecting views vs total utilitarianism, and find them less compelling for these cases, because value may be grounded on fundamentally different things ( more). How this work has changed my mind: I was originally very skeptical of intertheoretic comparisons of value/reasons in general, including across theories of consciousness and the scaling of welfare and moral weights between animals, because of the two envelopes problem ( Tomasik, 2013-2018) and the apparent arbitrariness involved. This lasted until around December 2023, and some arguments here were originally going to be part of a piece strongly against such comparisons for cross-species moral weights, which I now respond to here along with positive arguments for comparisons. Acknowledgements I credit Derek Shiller and Adam Shriver for the idea of treating the problem like epistemic uncertainty relative to what we experience directly. I'd also like to thank Brian Tomasik, Derek Shiller and Bob Fischer for feedback. All errors are my own. Background On the allocation between the animal-inclusive and human-centric near-termist views, specifically, Karnofsky ( 2018) raised a problem: The "animal-inclusive" vs. "human-centric" divide could be interpreted as being about a form of "normative uncertainty": un...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Brian Tomasik on charity, published by Vasco Grilo on January 31, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. This is a linkpost for Brian Tomasik's posts on charity. My Donation Recommendations By Brian Tomasik First published: 2014 Nov 02. Last nontrivial update: 2018 May 02. Note from 2022 Jun 27: The details in this piece are slightly outdated. Maybe I'll update this page at some point, but for now, here's a quick summary of my current views. In terms of maximizing expected suffering reduction over the long-run future, my top recommendation is the Center for Reducing Suffering (CRS), closely followed by the Center on Long-Term Risk (CLR). (I'm an advisor to both of them.) I think both of these organizations do important work, but CRS is more in need of funding currently. CRS and CLR do research and movement building aiming to reduce risks of astronomical suffering in the far future. This kind of work can feel very abstract, and it's difficult to know if your impact is even net good on balance. Personally I prefer to also contribute some of my resources toward efforts that more concretely reduce suffering in the short run, to avoid feeling like I'm possibly wasting my life on excessive speculation. For this reason, I plan to donate my personal wealth over time toward charities that work mainly or exclusively on improving animal welfare. (I prefer welfare improvements over reducing meat consumption because the sign of the latter for wild-animal suffering is unclear.) The Humane Slaughter Association is my current favorite. A decent portion of the charities granted to by the EA Funds Animal Welfare Fund also do high-impact animal welfare work. I donate a bit to Animal Ethics as well. Summary This piece describes my views on a few charities. I explain what I like about each charity and what concerns me about it. Currently, my top charity recommendation for someone with values similar to mine is the Foundational Research Institute (an organization that I co-founded and volunteer for). Spreading Google Grants with Caution about Counterfactuals By Brian Tomasik First published: 2014 Feb 04. Last nontrivial update: 2016 Nov 09. Summary If you find an effective charity, write to them to ask whether they use Google Grants, and if not, suggest they sign up. Google Grants offers the prospect of immense returns for a small amount of labor, although one needs to be careful about not competing with other effective organizations and choosing keywords that draw in new people rather than preaching to the choir. Update (2015 Sep): Having used Google Grants for the last 1.5 years for several organizations, my conclusion is that the value of AdWords is modest. None of my organizations has found via AdWords a major donor or a promising future employee, even though our websites get high traffic volume from ads. Maybe part of the reason is that the best people don't click on ads much? Another reason is that the best people tend to be concentrated in dense social clusters, so that networking can be more effective. The Haste Consideration, Revisited By Brian Tomasik First published: 2013 Feb 03. Last nontrivial update: 2018 Apr 19. Summary Internal rates of return for charity are high, but they may not be as high as they seem naively. Haste is important, but because long-term growth is logistic rather than exponential, it's less important than has been suggested by some. That said, if artificial general intelligence (AGI) comes soon and exponential growth does not level off too quickly, naive haste may still be roughly appropriate. There are other factors for and against haste that parallel donate-vs.-invest considerations. Restating the summary in simpler language: Movements should saturate or at least show diminishing returns at some point, so that movement building sooner amounts to either j...

To oczywiście książki Krytyki Politycznej. Podsumowujemy rok, opowiadamy o najciekawszych premierach 2023 roku – a właściwie to opowiadamy o prawie wszystkich premierach mijającego roku – które teraz możecie kupić w naszej promocji świątecznej w bardzo przyjemnych cenach. https://wydawnictwo.krytykapolityczna.pl/najczesciej-kupowane To był ciekawy rok, nie tylko w Polsce i na Świecie, ale i na naszych wydawniczych półkach. Pisaliśmy o rzekach, grzybach, poruszonych, obrońcach pańszczyzny, Irlandii, Norwegii, godności i wielu innych ważnych dla nas sprawach. Czytajcie razem z nami książki Wydawnictwa Krytyki Politycznej, zwłaszcza jeżeli tak jak my, All you want for Christmas is siostrzeństwo, równość, sprawiedliwość społeczna, inkluzywna narracja historyczna, świeckie państwo, postgrowth, rozsądna polityka narkotykowa, sprawiedliwość społeczna.

Kończący się za chwilę rok 2023 był kolejnym obfitującym w polską literaturę LGBT+, której poświęcone są Podcasty Stonewall. Czy któraś z tych książek jest szczególnie ważna? Jakie lektury trzeba koniecznie nadrobić? Która nada się świetnie nie tylko na świąteczny prezent? O to i parę innych spraw Mike Urbaniak pyta Krzysztofa Tomasika, autora książek, biografistę, publicystę i redaktora od lat zajmującego się tematyką LGBT+. 

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Brian Tomasik on climate change, published by Vasco Grilo on November 25, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. This is a linkpost to Brian Tomasik's posts on climate change. Climate Change and Wild Animals By Brian Tomasik First written: 2008. Major additions: 2013. Last nontrivial update: 4 Aug 2018. Summary Human environmental choices have vast implications for wild animals, and one of our largest ecological impacts is climate change. Each human in the industrialized world may create or prevent in a potentially predictable way at least millions of insects and potentially more zooplankton per year by his or her greenhouse-gas emissions. Is this influence net good or net bad? This question is very complicated to answer and takes us from examinations of tropical-climate expansion, sea ice, and plant productivity to desertification, coral reefs, and oceanic-temperature dynamics. On balance, I'm extremely uncertain about the net impact of climate change on wild-animal suffering; my probabilities are basically 50% net good vs. 50% net bad when just considering animal suffering on Earth in the next few centuries (ignoring side effects on humanity's very long-term future). Since other people care a lot about preventing climate change, and since climate change might destabilize prospects for a cooperative future, I currently think it's best to err on the side of reducing our greenhouse-gas emissions where feasible, but my low level of confidence reduces my fervor about the issue in either direction. That said, I am fairly confident that biomass-based carbon offsets, such as rainforest preservation, are net harmful for wild animals. See also: "Effects of Climate Change on Terrestrial Net Primary Productivity" "Scenarios for Very Long-Term Impacts of Climate Change on Wild-Animal Suffering" Effects of CO2 and Climate Change on Terrestrial Net Primary Productivity By Brian Tomasik First written: 2008-2016. Last nontrivial update: 28 Feb 2018. Summary This page compiles information on ways in which greenhouse-gas emissions and climate change will likely increase and likely decrease land-plant growth in the coming decades. The net impact is very unclear. I favor lower net primary productivity (NPP) because primary production gives rise to invertebrate suffering. Terrestrial NPP is just one dimension to consider when assessing all the impacts of climate change; effects on, e.g., marine NPP may be just as important. Scenarios for Very Long-Term Impacts of Climate Change on Wild-Animal Suffering By Brian Tomasik First published: 2016 Jan 10. Last nontrivial update: 2016 Mar 07. Summary Climate change will significantly affect wild-animal populations, and hence wild-animal suffering, in the future. However, due to advances in technology, it seems unlikely climate change will have a major impact on wild-animal suffering beyond a few centuries from now. Still, there's a remote chance that human civilization will collapse before undoing climate change or eliminating the biosphere, and in that case, the effects of climate change could linger for thousands to millions of years. I calculate that this consideration might multiply the expected wild-animal impact of climate change by 20 to 21 times, although given model uncertainty and the difficulty of long-term predictions, these estimates should be taken with caution. The default parameters in this piece suggest that the CO2 emissions of the average American lead to a long-term change of -3 to 3 expected insect-years of eventual wild-animal suffering every second. My main takeaway from this piece is that "climate change could be really important even relative to other environmental issues; we should explore further whether it's likely to increase or decrease wild-animal suffering on balance". This piece should not be interpreted to suppo...

Świętujemy wyniki wyborów i zatrzymanie autorytaryzmu. Pozwalamy sobie na chwilę radości. Ale jak to my, nie zapominamy o naszych książkach. Czytamy je i polecamy, bo wiemy, że czeka nas dużo pracy, żeby było normalnie. A co czytamy? „Przejęte”, czyli numer dialogu wydany przez zespół redakcyjny nie godzący się na dobrą zmianę u nich. Cały numer poświęcony jest instytucjom kultury przejętym przez PiS. Arcyciekawa i niezbędna lektura, abyśmy wiedzieli, gdzie i jakie zmiany są teraz potrzebne. W naszym wyborze powyborczych lektur nie mogło zabraknąć „Ekonomia to stan umysłu”, nowej książki Andrzeja Ledera (i oczywiście „Prześnionej rewolucji”) i „Społeczeństwa populistów”. A dla chwili refleksji i przyjemności czytamy „Społeczeństwo zmęczenia”. 7 listopada, we wtorek zapraszamy na premierę książki „Ekonomia to stan umysłu” Andrzeja Ledera. Rozmowę poprowadzi Agnieszka Lichnerowicz https://www.facebook.com/events/1357890121477425

Z niecierpliwością czekaliśmy na nową książkę Marty Abramowicz i wreszcie jest! „Irlandia wstaje z kolan” https://wydawnictwo.krytykapolityczna.pl/irlandia-wstaje-z-kolan-marta-abramowicz-1196 to reportaż o zielonej wyspie, która pozostawała pod ogromnym wpływem kościoła katolickiego przez bardzo długi czas. Ale po latach opresji udało się Irlandii wstać z kolan. To nie jedyna nasza wrześniowa nowość w Serii z koloratką. „Córka księdza” https://wydawnictwo.krytykapolityczna.pl/corka-ksiedza-marta-glanc-1194 Marty Glanc to intymna opowieść o walce o siebie, w świecie, który bardzo pilnuje naszej wspólnej tajemnicy. Mamy już pokaźny stos krytycznych książek o kościele, przypominamy o nich w naszej rozmowie i zapowiadamy kolejną. Polska też wstanie z kolan.

Wraz z końcem lata mamy dla Was dwie nowości z naszej Serii Historycznej. Niezwykle nas to cieszy, bo nasza Seria Historyczna jest wyjątkowa – opisuje, to co do tej pory pozostawało nieopowiedziane ale też cieszy się wielką popularnością. W lipcu ukazała się książka Natalii Judzińskiej „Po lewej stronie Sali. Getto ławkowe w międzywojennym Wilnie” https://wydawnictwo.krytykapolityczna.pl/po-lewej-stronie-sali-natalia-judzinska-1186, a 1 września premierę mają „Poruszeni. Awans i emocje w socjalistycznej Polsce” Magdy Szcześniak https://wydawnictwo.krytykapolityczna.pl/poruszeni-awans-i-emocje-w-socjalistycznej-polsce-1190. Opowiadamy też o kilku starszych tytułach, bo książki z naszej Serii historycznej, poza tym, że są arcyciekawe i arcyważne, zdobywają najważniejsze nagrody a nawet powstają z ich inspiracji seriale. Ale przede wszystkim cieszą się popularnością wśród naszych czytelniczek i czytelników. Mamy nadzieję, że tak jak my, z niecierpliwością wyglądacie kolejnych nowości w Serii Historycznej Wydawnictwa Krytyki Politycznej.

Jedziemy na wycieczkę, bierzemy książkę w teczkę. I to naszą ulubioną, bo z Wydawnictwa Krytyki Politycznej. Często słyszymy na targach, że wydajemy tylko poważne książki i prosicie nas o polecenie czegoś lżejszego. Patrząc na naszą ofertę nie jest to łatwe, dlatego bardzo lubimy nasz wakacyjny odcinek, gdzie możemy polecić książki, które uprzyjemnią Wam wypoczynek. Chociaż na pewno nie uchronią Was przed refleksją. Co pakujemy do naszej wakacyjnej walizki? Dwa reportaże o wodzie i elektrowni jądrowej. Książki o Barei, reportaż o narkotykach i powieść, której lektura sprawi, że poczujecie, że nawet w Polsce może być miło i przyjemnie.

W tym gorącym okresie – zaczynającego się lata ale też rozkręcającej się kampanii wyborczej – mamy dla Was propozycje lektur, które pokazują, gdzie jest polskie społeczeństwo. Dobrze myślicie, że nie jest dobrze. „Społeczeństwo populistów” Przemka Sadury i Sławka Sierakowskiego https://wydawnictwo.krytykapolityczna.pl/spoleczenstwo-populistow-sierakowski-sadura-1182, „Nowy autorytaryzm” Macieja Gduli https://wydawnictwo.krytykapolityczna.pl/nowy-autorytaryzm-maciej-gdula-460, „Kto się boi gender?” Agnieszki Graff i Elżbiety Korolczuk https://wydawnictwo.krytykapolityczna.pl/kto-sie-boi-gender-980 i „Obrońcy pańszczyzny” Adama Leszczyńskiego https://wydawnictwo.krytykapolityczna.pl/obroncy-panszczyzny-adam-leszczynski-1180 dają nam obraz współczesnego polskiego społeczeństwa. Folwarku już może i nie ma, ale relacje folwarczne (i nie tylko) odbijają nam się czkawką do dziś. 5 lipca, w środę, o godzinie 18.00 zapraszamy do Komuny Warszawa na spotkanie z Przemysławem Sadurą i Sławomirem Sierakowskim o „Społeczeństwie populistów”, Rozmowę z autorami poprowadzi Katarzyna Kasia: https://www.facebook.com/events/1439710326777364

Jeżeli jesteś inny w Polsce, to masz przegwizdane. A jeżeli jesteś osobą transpłciową, to nasze społeczeństwo nie da Ci o tym zapomnieć. Nie musi tak być. Mamy dla Was książki, które opowiadają historie osób transpłciowych, żyjących w Polsce. Nie jest im łatwo, ale dzięki ich szczerym opowieściom, możemy poczuć nadzieję, że jest możliwa lepsza Polska. Możecie przeczytać „Godność proszę. O transpłciowości, gniewie i nadziei” Mai Heban osobistą opowieść znanej aktywistki i publicystki, „Fanfika” Natalii Osińskiej, teraz z filmową okładką z ekranizacji Netflixa oraz „Ludzi nie ideologię”, wywiady pod redakcją Bartosza Żurawieckiego. 25 maja, w czwartek, o 18.00 zapraszamy Was na premierę książki Mai Heban do warszawskiej świetlicy Krytyki Politycznej na Jasnej 10: https://www.facebook.com/events/3506384322950398/ linki do książek: https://wydawnictwo.krytykapolityczna.pl/godnosc-prosze-maja-heban-1176 https://wydawnictwo.krytykapolityczna.pl/fanfik-natalia-osinska-739 https://wydawnictwo.krytykapolityczna.pl/ludzie-nie-ideologia-bartosz-zurawiecki-905

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: How much funging is there with donations to different EA animal charities?, published by Brian Tomasik on May 11, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. My main question The EA Funds Animal Welfare Fund makes grants to many different animal charities. Suppose I want to support one particular charity that they grant to because I think it's better, relative to my values, than most of the other ones. For example, maybe I want to specifically give to Legal Impact for Chickens (LIC), so I donate $1000 to them. Because this donation reduces LIC's room for more funding, it may decrease the amount that the Animal Welfare Fund itself (or Open Philanthropy, Animal Charity Evaluators, or individual EA donors) will give to LIC in the future. How large should I expect this effect to be in general? Will my $1000 donation tend to "funge" against these other EA donors almost fully, so that LIC can be expected to get about $1000 less from them? Is the funging amount more like $500? Is it roughly $0 of funging? Or maybe donating to LIC helps them grow faster, so that they can hire more people and do more things, thereby increasing their room for funding and how much other EA donors give to them? The answer to this question probably varies substantially from one case to the next, and maybe the best way to figure it out would be to learn a lot about the funding situation for a particular charity and the funding inclinations of big EA donors toward that charity. But that takes a lot of work, so I wonder if EA funders have some intuition for what tends to happen on average in situations like this, to inform small donors who aren't going to get that far into the weeds with a particular charity. Does the funging amount tend to be closer to 0% or closer to 100% of what an individual donor gives? I notice that the Animal Welfare Fund sometimes funds ~10% to ~50% of an organization's operating budget, which I imagine may be partly intentional to avoid crowding out small donors. (It may also be motivated by wanting charities to diversify their funding sources and due to limited funds to disburse.) Is it true in general that the Animal Welfare Fund doesn't fully fill room for funding, or are there charities for which the Fund does top up the charity completely? (Note that it would actually be better impact-wise to ensure that the very best charities are roughly fully funded, so I'm not encouraging a strategy of deliberately underfunding them.) In the rest of this post, I'll give more details on why I'm asking about this topic, but this further elaboration is optional reading and is more specific to my situation. My donation preferences I think a lot of EA donations to animal charities are really exciting. About 1/3 of the grants in the Animal Welfare Fund's Grants Database seem to me roughly as cost-effective as possible for reducing near-term animal suffering. However, for some other grants, I'm pretty ambivalent about the sign of the net impact (whether it's net good or bad). This is mainly for two reasons: I'm unsure if meat reduction, on the whole, reduces animal suffering, mainly because certain kinds of animal farming, especially cattle grazing on non-irrigated pasture, may reduce an enormous amount of wild-animal suffering (though there are huge error bars on this analysis). I'm unsure if antispeciesism in general reduces net suffering. In the short run, I worry that it may encourage more habitat preservation, thereby increasing wild-animal suffering. In the long run, moral-circle expansion could encourage people to create lots of additional small-brained sentience, and in (hopefully unlikely) scenarios where human values become inverted, antispeciesist values could multiply total suffering manyfold. If I could press a button to reduce overall meat consumption or to increase concern for an...

Oddajemy do Waszych rąk trzy świetne reportaże. To trochę nasza tradycja, że wiosnę rozpoczynamy z mocnymi, reporterskimi książkami. „Autoholizm. Jak odstawić samochód w polskim mieście” https://wydawnictwo.krytykapolityczna.pl/autoholizm-marta-zakowska-1119 Marty Żakowskiej to opowieść o naszej nieodwzajemnionej miłości do samochodów. Dalibyśmy im wszystko, ale one w zamian uczynią nasze życie w mieście nieznośnym. „Żarnowiec. Sen o polskiej elektrowni jądrowej” https://wydawnictwo.krytykapolityczna.pl/zarnowiec-sen-o-polskiej-elektrowni-jadrowej-1122 Piotra Wróblewskiego, sentymentalna podróż do końcówki PRLu i opowieść o marzeniu o polskiej elektrowni. Marzeniu, które prawie się spełniło. „Nie jestem twoim Polakiem. Reportaż z Norwegii” https://wydawnictwo.krytykapolityczna.pl/nie-jestem-twoim-polakiem-ewa-sapiezynska-1172 Ewy Sapieżyńskiej był bestsellerem w Norwegii, bo po raz pierwszy oddał głos największej mniejszości w tym kraju. Opowieść o rasizmie i uprzedzeniach, ale też o empatii i spotkaniach między ludźmi, które pozwalają zobaczyć się bez etykietek ,daje nam nadzieję, że również w Polsce jest miejsce dla wszystkich. Poza arcyciekawymi książkami dajemy Wam też do 9 maja promocję na nasze książki. Jeżeli dorzucicie do koszyka, którąś z naszych książkę z Serii „Nie-fikcja” dostaniecie 40% rabat na wszystkie książki i ebooki Wydawnictwa Krytyki Politycznej. https://wydawnictwo.krytykapolityczna.pl/content/39-miesiac-z-nie-fikcja

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Predicting what future people value: A terse introduction to Axiological Futurism, published by Jim Buhler on March 24, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Why this is worth researching Humanity might develop artificial general intelligence (AGI), colonize space, and create astronomical amounts of things in the future (Bostrom 2003; MacAskill 2022; Althaus and Gloor 2016). But what things? How (dis)valuable? And how does this compare with things grabby aliens would eventually create if they colonize our corner of the universe? What does this imply for our work aimed at impacting the long-term future? While this depends on many factors, a crucial one will likely be the values of our successors. Here's a position that might tempt us while considering whether it is worth researching this topic: Our descendants are unlikely to have values that are both different from ours in a very significant way and predictable. Either they have values similar to ours or they have values we can't predict. Therefore, trying to predict their values is a waste of time and resources. While I see how this can seem compelling, I think this is very ill-informed. First, predicting the values of our successors – what John Danaher (2021) calls axiological futurism – in worlds where these are meaningfully different from ours doesn't seem intractable at all. Significant progress has already been made in this research area and there seems to be room for much more (see the next section and the Appendix). Second, a scenario where the values of our descendants don't significantly differ from ours appears quite unlikely to me. We should watch for things like the End of History illusion, here. Values seem to notably evolve through History, and there is no reason to assume we are special enough to make us drop that prior. Besides being tractable, I believe axiological futurism to be uncommonly important given its instrumentality in answering the crucial questions mentioned earlier. It therefore also seems unwarrantedly neglected as of today. How to research this Here are examples of broad questions that could be part of a research agenda on this topic: What are the best predictors of future human values? What can we learn from usual forecasting methods? How have people's values changed throughout History? Why? What can we learn from this? (see, e.g., MacAskill 2022, Chapter 3; Harris 2019; Hopster 2022) Are there reasons to think we'll observe less change in the future? Why? Value lock-in? Some form of moral convergence happening soon? Are there reasons to expect more change? Would that be due to the development of AGI, whole brain emulation, space colonization, and/or accelerated value drift? More broadly, what impact will future technological progress have on values? (see Hanson 2016 for a forecast example.) Should we expect some values to be selected for? (see, e.g., Christiano 2013; Bostrom 2009, Tomasik 2017) Might a period of “long reflection” take place? If yes, can we get some idea of what could result from it? Does something like coherent extrapolated volition have any chance of being pursued and if so, what could realistically result from it? Are there futures – where humanity has certain values – that are unlikely but worth wagering on? Might our research on this topic affect the values we should expect our successors to have by, e.g., triggering a self-defeating or self-fulfilling prophecy effect? (Danaher 2021, section 2) What do/will aliens value (see my forthcoming next post) and what does that tell us about ourselves? John Danaher (2021) gives examples of methodologies that could be used to answer these questions. Also, my Appendix references examples and other relevant work, including the (forthcoming) next posts in this sequence. Acknowledgment Thanks to Anders Sandberg for pointing m...

Zamiast tulipanów i czekoladek mamy dla Was książki. To najlepszy prezent jaki możemy sami sobie zrobić. Wybór nie był łatwy i poszliśmy tropem naszych ulubionych tytułów, które wybieracie najczęściej. To dwie pozycje ikony światowego feminizmu – bell hooks – „Teoria feministyczna" i „Gotowi na zmianę" (uwaga w przyszłym tygodniu znów dostępni w papierze). Książki Agnieszki Graff, jednej z najbardziej znanych polskich feministek, która pisze u nas o tym, „Kto się boi gender" (z Elżbietą Korolczuk), o „Matce feministce" a Michałowi Sutowskiemu opowiada, co ją ukształtowało i „Jest stąd". Z okazji zbliżającej się premiery „Rozrzutu” Andy Rottenberg przypominamy „Listę" i „Berlińską depresję". A dla tych, którzy jeszcze nie czytali Próby Joanny Bednarek, polecamy opowieść o amih, młodych kobietach, które walczą o świat, gdzie nikt nie będzie dla nikogo pracował i nikt nie będzie nikogo uciskał.

Z okazji corocznego święta zakochanych przypominamy kilka naszych tytułów. Nie ma w nich romantycznej miłości i szczęśliwych zakończeń, ale jest dawka dobrej lektury i nieoczywiste spojrzenie na międzyludzkie relacje. Miłość z tindera, płatna miłość, koniec miłości i niespełniona miłość. Pozbawione lukru lektury o związkach, za to z odrobiną queerowej posypki. Najlepsze lektury na lutowe wieczory. KUP KSIĄŻKI WYDAWNICTWA KP: https://wydawnictwo.krytykapolityczna.pl/ *** Podcast o książkach *** Vendula Czabak i Krzysztof Tomasik rozmawiają o książkach Wydawnictwa Krytyki Politycznej. Polecają nowości, podpowiadają, po co warto sięgnąć, aby wiedzieć więcej, i zdradzają, co szykujemy dla was w najbliższym czasie. Krytyczne książki to ich pasja i praca, o której mogą mówić godzinami. Na potrzeby podcastu starają się zmieścić w kilku zdaniach. Z naciskiem na „starają się”.

Wymazał kościół ze swojego życia, zdjął sutannę i opisał, co dzieje się za murami seminarium i plebanii. Robert Samborski wraca z drugą książką, w której rozlicza swoje kościelne życie i opisuje swoją drogę do życia bez boga. Co seria z koloratką mówi nam o kościele katolickim? O tym rozmawiamy przypominając największe hity w serii z koloratką. Czekamy na kolejną, która ukaże się na jesieni. Są jeszcze tematy w polskim kościele warte opisania. KUP KSIĄŻKI WYDAWNICTWA KP: https://wydawnictwo.krytykapolityczna.pl/ *** Podcast o książkach *** Vendula Czabak i Krzysztof Tomasik rozmawiają o książkach Wydawnictwa Krytyki Politycznej. Polecają nowości, podpowiadają, po co warto sięgnąć, aby wiedzieć więcej, i zdradzają, co szykujemy dla was w najbliższym czasie. Krytyczne książki to ich pasja i praca, o której mogą mówić godzinami. Na potrzeby podcastu starają się zmieścić w kilku zdaniach. Z naciskiem na „starają się”.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Do Brains Contain Many Conscious Subsystems? If So, Should We Act Differently?, published by Bob Fischer on December 5, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Key Takeaways The Conscious Subsystems Hypothesis (“Conscious Subsystems,” for short) says that brains have subsystems that realize phenomenally conscious states that aren't accessible to the subjects we typically associate with those brains—namely, the ones who report their experiences to us. Given that humans' brains are likely to support more such subsystems than animals' brains, EAs who have explored Conscious Subsystems have suggested that it provides a reason for risk-neutral expected utility maximizers to assign more weight to humans relative to animals. However, even if Conscious Subsystems is true, it probably doesn't imply that risk-neutral expected utility maximizers ought to allocate neartermist dollars to humans instead of animals. There are three reasons for this: If humans have conscious subsystems, then animals probably have them too, so taking them seriously doesn't increase the expected value of, say, humans over chickens as much as we might initially suppose. Risk-neutral expected utility maximizers are committed to assumptions—including the assumption that all welfare counts equally, whoever's welfare it is—that support the conclusion that the best animal-focused neartermist interventions (e.g., cage-free campaigns) are many times better than the best human-focused neartermist interventions (e.g., bednets). Independently, note that the higher our credences in the theories of consciousness that are most friendly to Conscious Subsystems, the higher our credences ought to be in the hypothesis that many small invertebrates are sentient. So, insofar as we're risk-neutral expected utility maximizers with relatively high credences in Conscious Subsystems-friendly theories of consciousness, it's likely that we should be putting far more resources into investigating the welfare of the world's small invertebrates. We assign very low credences to claims that ostensibly support Conscious Subsystems. The appeal of the idea that standard theories of consciousness support Conscious Subsystems may be based on not distinguishing (a) theories that are just designed to make predictions about when people will self-report having conscious experiences of a certain type (which may all be wrong, but have whatever direct empirical support they have) and (b) theories that are attempts to answer the so-called “hard problem” of consciousness (which only have indirect empirical support and are far more controversial). Standard versions of functionalism say that states are conscious when they have the right relationships to sensory stimulations, other mental states, and behavior. But it's highly unlikely that many groups of neurons stand in the correct relationships, even if they perform functions that, in the abstract, seem as complex and sophisticated as those performed by whole brains. Ultimately, we do not recommend acting on Conscious Subsystems at this time. Introduction This is the fifth post in the Moral Weight Project Sequence. The aim of the sequence is to provide an overview of the research that Rethink Priorities conducted between May 2021 and October 2022 on interspecific cause prioritization—i.e., making resource allocation decisions across species. The aim of this post is to assess a hypothesis that's been advanced by several members of the EA community: namely, that brains have subsystems that realize phenomenally conscious states that aren't accessible to the subjects we typically associate with those brains (i.e., the ones who report their experiences to us; see, e.g., Tomasik, 2013-2019, Shiller, 2016, Muehlhauser, 2017, Shulman, 2020, Crummett, 2022). If there are such states, then we might think that ...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Why Neuron Counts Shouldn't Be Used as Proxies for Moral Weight, published by Adam Shriver on November 28, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Key Takeaways Several influential EAs have suggested using neuron counts as rough proxies for animals' relative moral weights. We challenge this suggestion. We take the following ideas to be the strongest reasons in favor of a neuron count proxy: neuron counts are correlated with intelligence and intelligence is correlated with moral weight, additional neurons result in “more consciousness” or “more valenced consciousness,” and increasing numbers of neurons are required to reach thresholds of minimal information capacity required for morally relevant cognitive abilities. However: in regards to intelligence, we can question both the extent to which more neurons are correlated with intelligence and whether more intelligence in fact predicts greater moral weight; many ways of arguing that more neurons results in more valenced consciousness seem incompatible with our current understanding of how the brain is likely to work; and there is no straightforward empirical evidence or compelling conceptual arguments indicating that relative differences in neuron counts within or between species reliably predicts welfare relevant functional capacities. Overall, we suggest that neuron counts should not be used as a sole proxy for moral weight, but cannot be dismissed entirely. Rather, neuron counts should be combined with other metrics in an overall weighted score that includes information about whether different species have welfare-relevant capacities. Introduction This is the fourth post in the Moral Weight Project Sequence. The aim of the sequence is to provide an overview of the research that Rethink Priorities conducted between May 2021 and October 2022 on interspecific cause prioritization—i.e., making resource allocation decisions across species. The aim of this post is to summarize our full report on the use of neuron counts as proxies for moral weights. The full report can be found here and includes more extensive arguments and evidence. Motivations for the Report Can the number of neurons an organism possesses, or some related measure, be used as a proxy for deciding how much weight to give that organism in moral decisions? Several influential EAs have suggested that the answer is “Yes” in cases that involve aggregating the welfare of members of different species (Tomasik 2013, MacAskill 2022, Alexander 2021, Budolfson & Spears 2020). For the purposes of aggregating and comparing welfare across species, neuron counts are proposed as multipliers for cross-species comparisons of welfare. In general, the idea goes, as the number of neurons an organism possesses increases, so too does some morally relevant property related to the organism's welfare. Generally, the morally relevant properties are assumed to increase linearly with an increase in neurons, though other scaling functions are possible. Scott Alexander of Slate Star Codex has a passage illustrating how weighting by neuron count might work: “Might cows be "more conscious" in a way that makes their suffering matter more than chickens? Hard to tell. But if we expect this to scale with neuron number, we find cows have 6x as many cortical neurons as chickens, and most people think of them as about 10x more morally valuable. If we massively round up and think of a cow as morally equivalent to 20 chickens, switching from an all-chicken diet to an all-beef diet saves 60 chicken-equivalents per year.” (2021) This methodology has important implications for assigning moral weight. For example, the average number of neurons in a human (86,000,000,000) is 390 times greater than the average number of neurons in a chicken (220,000,000) so we would treat the welfare units of humans as 39...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Why I don't write as much as I used to (Brian Tomasik, 2022), published by niplav on August 3, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Brian Tomasik is well-known in Effective Altruism for his prolific writing on reducing suffering, but in the last years he has been updating his website less and less. He recently wrote a post about the reasons for doing so (emphasis all mine): Now that I already have a large body of online writings, the marginal value of additional writings is plausibly lower. If I were to write more, it would probably be about increasingly niche issues. But I think the main value of my writings is to get people interested via the big ideas, like wild-animal suffering, insect sentience, suffering-focused ethics, and the concept of s-risks. From that starting point, people can "graduate" to the more advanced research being done by organizations like the Center on Long-Term Risk and the Center for Reducing Suffering. [.] As the EA and suffering-reduction communities matured, they also had more money to spend on grants, as well as more people to connect with. I often felt that it was more useful to give some high-level thoughts on grantmaking and organization strategy than to write a new public-facing article for my website. [.] In the old days, many of my discussions about EA had been in public forums with other amateurs. This meant it was possible to consolidate insights from those discussions into public website articles. As EA became professionalized, more discussions became private, which made publishing insights from those discussions trickier. [.] These days, I tend to feel like you can only write "state of the art" and relatively error-free articles if (1) you're an expert in a particular field or (2) you're writing about something you know personally, such as an organization you work with or your personal life (which are special cases of being an expert in a particular field). People who for their jobs have to write about lots of different topics often get things wrong—sometimes small details but sometimes crucial points. [.] There's a saying that "young people think they know everything", and while that was never literally true for me by any means, I think a much weaker statement in that direction was true. When I was younger, I felt like I had important insights that needed to be expressed to a greater degree than I do now. These days, I've been exposed to enough intellectual viewpoints that any given one of them appears less special. Most new ideas feel like the same old kind of stuff I've been hearing for a long time. [.] I tend to become interested in more and more areas over time, as I get exposed to new things. This means the amount of time I have to spend on any given topic area is smaller, and it becomes infeasible to continue collecting information on each of those topics. I also realize that people can often just do a web search or consult Wikipedia to find a lot of relevant information, and I personally don't have to try to collect it. [.] Eventually I concluded that there were just too many new (and old) articles on the topic, and I didn't have time to keep adding links to them. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Pola Raksa zagrała wiele ról teatralnych i filmowych, ale zbiorową wyobraźnią zawładnęła dzięki roli w serialu, który stał się jednym z największych fenomenów polskiej kultury masowej. Postać ślicznej sanitariuszki przyniosła jej bezprecedensową sławę, stając się jednocześnie przekleństwem. Chociaż wystąpiła w filmach Wajdy, Hasa i Barei - dla milionów widzów pozostała już na zawsze rudowłosą Rosjanką z Czterech pancernych. Mówiła, że serial odbił się fatalnie także na jej życiu osobistym: "Kolejni narzeczeni odchodzili w siną dal, bo nie mogli znieść tego ciągłego szarpania mnie za rękaw i pytania widzów: A co z Jankiem?". Ikona polskiego kina lat sześćdziesiątych wycofała się z życia publicznego i od wielu lat konsekwentnie odmawia kontaktu z mediami. Opowieść Krzysztofa Tomasika to próba wyjaśnienia, na czym polegał fenomen aktorki, za której twarz "każdy by się zabić dał". Na podcast zaprasza Michał Nogaś. Kolejne odcinki w cyklu "Książki. Magazyn do słuchania" w każdą sobotę. Do usłyszenia! Więcej podcastów na https://wyborcza.pl/podcast

PATRONITE: https://patronite.pl/rapmatters Sklep z winylami i kompaktami: www.iwoski.pl (-10% na hasło WOSKMATTERS) Grupa na FB: https://www.facebook.com/groups/RapMATTersPodcast/ Fanpage: https://www.facebook.com/rapmatterspodcast/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/rapmatterspodcast/

Czy lekcje religii w szkołach powstrzymają ateizację młodego pokolenia? Jaki sens ma organizowanie matury z religii? W #IPPTV przedstawiciel KEP ks. prof. Piotr Tomasik --- Nasze konto na nowym serwisie odysee https://odysee.com/@idzpodpradtv Jeżeli chcesz, aby nasz program gościł u Ciebie codziennie - WESPRZYJ NASZĄ TELEWIZJĘ: http://idzpodprad.pl/wsparcie Twoje wsparcie jest potrzebne do codziennego nadawania! Stwórzmy razem nową jakość mediów patriotycznych! Oglądaj nas na: http://youtube.com/idzpodpradtv http://idzpodprad.tv http://idzpodprad.pl/mp3 tel. 814 669 315, koszt jak za połączenie http://idzpodprad.fm http://vimeo.com/idzpodpradtv http://cda.pl/idzpodprad KONTAKT: kontakt@idzpodprad.pl Bądź na bieżąco: http://idzpodprad.pl Znajdziesz nas również w mediach społecznościowych: FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/idzpodprad/ TWITTER: https://www.twitter.com/idzpodpradpl http://twitter.com/PastorChojecki https://twitter.com/PawelChojecki INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/idzpodprad.tv/ Nasz kanał anglojęzyczny Against the Tide TV https://twitter.com/AgainstTideTV Support this podcast

Jamie and I talk about espresso, our allegiance to soy milk, veganism in LA vs London, nutritional criticisms of veganism, a future of lab grown Peter Singer burgers, geographic vs temporal considerations in expanding one's moral circle, anti-speciesism, scope neglect thought experiments, wild animal suffering and invertebrate suffering, lifestyle adjustments vs financial offsets for animal welfare, normie reception of Tomasik's video game essay, Effective Altruism, consciousness as information processing, panpsychism gone wild, and the role of artists and musicians in movements like Sentientism. For more info please check out Jamie's website and blog: sentientism.info Find Jamie on twitter: @sentientism @jamiewoodhouse

Powszechnie już wiadomo, że Witold Gombrowicz był najprawdopodobniej biseksualny. Wątki homoerotyczne zajmują ważne miejsce w ponad 1000-stronicowej biografii autora napisanej przez Klementynę Suchanow, jego intymnych notatkach opublikowanych kilka lat temu pod tytułem "Kronos" i w dziesiątkach opracowań jego twórczości - to wszystko i jeszcze więcej specjalnie dla Was streściliśmy w kwadrans :)Źródła:K. Tomasik, „Homobiografie", Wydawnictwo Krytyki Politycznej, 2008.W. Gombrowicz, "Kronos", Wydawnictwo Literackie, 2013. K. Suchanow, "Gombrowicz. Ja, geniusz", Wydawnictwo Czarne, 2017.

W czwartym odcinku przenosimy się w czasie aż do końca XIX wieku, by bliżej poznać historię relacji Marii Konopnickiej i Marii Dulębianki. Opowiadamy też m.in. o tym, że autorka "Roty" nie zawsze była uważana za nudną wieszczkę narodu oraz o pewnym odważnym czynie Dulębianki z 1908 roku.Źródła:K.Tomasik, Homobiografie, Wydawnictwo Krytyki Politycznej, 2008.K. Tomasik, Konopnicka + Dulębianka = WNM, “Replika” nr 77, 2019.J.Janiczak i W. Rubin: Odzyskać lesbijki, odzyskać Konopnicką - wywiad przeprowadził K. Tomasik, “Replika” nr 77, 2019.J. Kuciel-Frydryszak,“Chcemy całego życia!" - krzyczała ponad 100 lat temu Nałkowska. Dziś my krzyczymy tak samo, “Wysokie Obcasy Extra” nr 11, 2016.

Join Mary, Takura, Lizzy, and Kim as they answer listener questions about their work on the Tomasik case! The Defenders explain the work they did on the case, which led to Dennis Tomasik's exoneration.

Moim gościem po raz trzeci jest Małgosia Majewska-Tomasik, psychoterapeutka i moja serdeczna przyjaciółka a z wykształcenia również doktor chemii i etnolog. Zachęcam do wysłuchania poprzednich rozmów z Małgosią. Pierwsza z nich dotyczyła psychoterapii, a w drugiej odpowiadałyśmy na Wasze pytania dotyczące zdrowia psychicznego. Dzisiaj tematem przewodnim jest psychologia ewolucyjna, czyli jeden z obszarów badań psychologii, szukający wyjaśnień wzorów ludzkich zachowań jako ukształtowanych przez ewolucję biologiczną i kulturową – stopniowego rozwiązywania problemów adaptacyjnych pierwotnych ludzi. Dowiemy się dlaczego większość prawidłowości jakie wyjaśnia psychologia ewolucyjna nawiązuje do różnic płciowych oraz skąd wzięła się znaczna część stereotypów. Poznamy odpowiedzi na pytania dlaczego mężczyźni wolą blondynki, czemu kobiety są bardziej rodzinne oraz dlaczego nasze społeczeństwo nie jest monogamiczne. Te i wiele innych niesamowitych ciekawostek znajdziecie właśnie w dzisiejszym odcinku, zapraszam. Pierwsza rozmowa z Małgosią o psychoterapii zdrowiu psychicznym:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvq9jev9Z6s Druga rozmowa o nurtach terapeutycznych, fobiach i lękach społecznych:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK85IvZmjiI Strona Małgosi:https://www.facebook.com/mmt.psychoterapia/ Codziennik to przewodnik po najważniejszej podróży w życiu – podróży w głąb siebie przez niezbadane krainy wartości, sensów i marzeń. Stworzony w oparciu o fundamenty psychoterapii poznawczo-behawioralnej, logoterapii, psychologii pozytywnej i „filozofii małych kroków”. Zawarte w nim pytania ułożone są w odpowiedniej kolejności, tak by powoli i bezpiecznie zanurzać się w siebie, codziennie stopniując wyzwania. rabat -10% z kodem PODCAST do 15.12 Zamów Codziennik:https://karolinasobanska.com/produkt/codziennik/  

Małgosia Majewska-Tomasik po raz drugi jest gościem programu. Rozmawiamy oczywiście o psychoterapii, ale tym razem dowiemy się jak wybrać odpowiedni nurt, czym różni się terapia grupowa od indywidualnej oraz jakie są wady i zalety terapii online. Ten odcinek ma format odpowiedzi na Wasze pytania, dlatego zgłębimy takie zagadnienia jak fobie społeczne, walka z nieśmiałością, depresja czy WWO. Mówimy też o tym jak bez pomocy terapeuty można pracować nad sobą i przedstawiamy „Codziennik”, czyli notes, który stworzyłyśmy razem z Małgosią i możecie zakupić go na: www.karolinasobanska.com/sklep Do końca sierpnia jest on dostępny w promocyjnej cenie 89PLN.   Strona Małgosi Instagram   Mówimy o: EMU Inwentarz depresji ICD 10 Katarzyna Miller „Instrukcja obsługi toksycznych ludzi” Elaine Aron   Poprzedni odcinek z Małgosią: https://youtu.be/rvq9jev9Z6s

Can you imagine how the matter behaved right after the Big Bang? Consider two atomic nuclei flying toward each other with almost speed of light. What happens if they collide? We create a tiny unstable droplet of the primordial matter. This matter has nothing in common with the ordinary matter which surrounds us. It is much denser and extremely hot (temperature > 1 000 000 000 000 000 C). The field researching that is called the heavy ion collisions physics, and the matter is called quark-gluon plasma. This is the second and the last pilot episode of the Born to science podcast and today’s guest is a professor Boris Tomasik. He develops the theory of heavy ion collisions in the Czech Technical University in Prague and the Matej Bel University in Slovakia. We will discuss what quark-gluon plasma is, how we create it and how it behaves. Enjoy! This episode was supported by the COST-THOR EU programme. p.s. This is the last pilot episode of the podcast. So I would appreciate any feedback from your side. Comments and suggestions are very welcome. If you like it and want more, then text me about it and don't forget to share the podcast with your friendsyou can find me on fb: https://www.facebook.com/BornToScience/and vk: https://vk.com/born_to_science

Emily and Margaret made videos and ran cross country together in high school. Emily talks about going to film school, working on a farm, and finally moving to Asheville and setting up a business as a clay miniature artist.   Check out her Etsy shop: https://www.etsy.com/shop/EmilyTomasik And her instagram: @a_little_unnecessary  

"Kompas dietetyczny" Bas Kast: http://bit.ly/BasKast-KompasDietetyczny Rozmowa z psychoterapeutką Małgorzatą Majewską-Tomasik o tym czym (nie) jest psychoterapia, na czym polega, kto powinien się na nią udać i jak ważne jest zdrowie psychiczne. Inspirujące rozmowy z wyjątkowymi gośćmi. Dieta roślinna, weganizm, ochrona środowiska, naturalne kosmetyki, etyczna moda i podróże, bo jeden temat to za mało. Podcast dla ciekawych świata, żyjących w zgodzie ze sobą i w harmonii z naturą. Więcej na http://karolinasobanska.com/

In this episode, we are so excited to have Mattie Tomasik with Lola Lee Invitations at the office.  Mattie is a true designer and creator of some of the most beautifully put together invitations in the industry.  We are lucky to know and work with such a leader in the industry and are happy to […]

What role does metaethics play in AI alignment and safety? How might paths to AI alignment change given different metaethical views? How do issues in moral epistemology, motivation, and justification affect value alignment? What might be the metaphysical status of suffering and pleasure?  What's the difference between moral realism and anti-realism and how is each view grounded?  And just what does any of this really have to do with AI? The Metaethics of Joy, Suffering, and AI Alignment is the fourth podcast in the new AI Alignment series, hosted by Lucas Perry. For those of you that are new, this series will be covering and exploring the AI alignment problem across a large variety of domains, reflecting the fundamentally interdisciplinary nature of AI alignment. Broadly, we will be having discussions with technical and non-technical researchers across areas such as machine learning, AI safety, governance, coordination, ethics, philosophy, and psychology as they pertain to the project of creating beneficial AI. If this sounds interesting to you, we hope that you will join in the conversations by following us or subscribing to our podcasts on Youtube, SoundCloud, or your preferred podcast site/application. If you're interested in exploring the interdisciplinary nature of AI alignment, we suggest you take a look here at a preliminary landscape which begins to map this space. In this podcast, Lucas spoke with David Pearce and Brian Tomasik. David is a co-founder of the World Transhumanist Association, currently rebranded Humanity+. You might know him for his work on The Hedonistic Imperative, a book focusing on our moral obligation to work towards the abolition of suffering in all sentient life. Brian is a researcher at the Foundational Research Institute. He writes about ethics, animal welfare, and future scenarios on his website "Essays On Reducing Suffering."  Topics discussed in this episode include: -What metaethics is and how it ties into AI alignment or not -Brian and David's ethics and metaethics -Moral realism vs antirealism -Emotivism -Moral epistemology and motivation -Different paths to and effects on AI alignment given different metaethics -Moral status of hedonic tones vs preferences -Can we make moral progress and would this mean? -Moving forward given moral uncertainty

Brian Tomasik writes about ethics, animal welfare, and far-future scenarios from a suffering-focused perspective, all of which you can find on reducing-suffering.com. He helped to found Foundational Research Institute, a think tank that explores crucial considerations for reducing suffering in the long-run future. (Full-disclosure, Holly is currently a contractor for FRI.) Previously, Brian earned to give as a programmer at FlyHomes, and before that at Microsoft. Brian is something of a cult figure in EA. You’ll see in the interview that he has an extremely thoroughly thought out viewpoint that still strikes a lot of EAs as very unituitive. That combination is pretty irresistable. Brian has changed our minds a lot and convinced me of the importance of a lot of things I previously overlooked. And he does it with such serenity and goodwill that you can’t help but like him while he’s dutifully showing you how wrong you are. Ales and I really loved the experience, and we hope you will, too.

W tym odcinku opowiadam o kulisach budowy i renowacji jedynej w Szkocji, trójwymiarowej mapy terenu tego kraju, która defacto powstała z inicjatywy polskiego weterana II wojny światowej - Jana Tomasika. Edit: Do odcinka wkradł się błąd: W 37 sekundzie pada liczba 50 odnośnie okresu czasu, w którym mapa była nieczynna. Chodziło oczywiście o liczbę 33 lat - czyli okres czasu od sprzedaży hotelu przez Jana Tomasika do roku 2018 :) NOTATKI DO ODCINKA Adres hotelu Barony Castle, na którego posesji znajduje się mapa: Barony Castle Hotel Eddleston Scottish Borders EH45 8QW LINKI, KTÓRE WARTO ODWIEDZIĆ http://www.mapascotland.org/ - strona organizacji, która odpowiedzialna jest za renowację mapy http://www.baronycastle.com/ - strona hotelu Barony Castle http://magazynsquare.pl/wielka-polska-mapa-szkocji-nasza-galeria-z-uroczystego-otwarcia/ - galeria zdjęć z uroczystości otwarcia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrunDIO04_0 - nagranie z drona przedstawiające Wielką Polską Mapę Szkocji ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ W audycji wykorzystano poniższy utwór muzyczny: We Are One by Vexento https://www.youtube.com/user/Vexento https://soundcloud.com/vexento Music promoted by Audio Library https://youtu.be/Ssvu2yncgWU

Brian Tomasik from Reducing-Suffering.org discusses ethics, animal welfare and far-future scenarios from a suffering-focused perspective. Here is his interview from 2015 presented in its entirety for the first time. This was one of the more controversial interviews on TRC and generated quite a bit of conversation.  As always, we’re interested to hear what you think. The crew will be back next week with a freshly minted show. Enjoy!

In the retrial of Dennis Tomasik, the jury only deliberated for 19 minutes before acquitting Dennis, who had been wrongfully imprisoned for close to nine years. In this episode of On Balance, hosts JoAnn Hathaway and Tish Vincent talk to Takura Nyamfukudza, Mary Chartier, and Dennis and Kim Tomasik themselves about the details of the case. Dennis discusses his experience in prison and what helped him persevere, and the attorneys discuss the evidence, witnesses, and the Wrongful Imprisonment Compensation Act. Mary Chartier's advocacy skills are the result of years of experience litigating serious and complex criminal defense cases in federal and state courts around Michigan. Takura Nyamfukudza is an experienced criminal defense litigator who practices in state and federal courts throughout Michigan. Dennis Tomasik was acquitted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct after wrongly imprisoned for close to nine years. Kim Tomasik is his wife who aided attorneys in gathering evidence for the case.

Dennis Tomasik was wrongfully imprisoned for close to nine years before his retrial and subsequent exoneration. In this episode of On Balance, hosts JoAnn Hathaway and Tish Vincent talk to Kris and Marty Tieber, the attorneys who helped reconstruct the Tomasik case and free Dennis. They discuss the importance of developing a story, their process of re-gathering the information, and the rewards for diligent legal work. Martin Tieber is a criminal defense attorney who specializes in criminal appeals, post conviction proceedings, and federal habeas litigation. Kristoffer Tieber also devotes most of his practice to criminal appeals, post conviction proceedings, and federal habeas litigation.

Brian Tomasik writes about ethics, animal welfare, and far-future scenarios from a suffering-focused perspective, all of which you can find on reducing-suffering.com. He helped to found Foundational Research Institute, a think tank that explores crucial considerations for reducing suffering in the long-run future. (Full-disclosure, Holly is currently a contractor for FRI.) Previously, Brian earned to give … Continue reading "The Turing Test #5: Brian Tomasik"

Source: Foundational Research Institute (original video)

Source: Foundational Research Institute (original video)

Source: Foundational Research Institute (original video) 

Source: Foundational Research Institute (original video)

Original source.

Original source.

Original source.

With Adam at the helm this week, we kick off with a segment from Cristina highlighting the challenges women face forging a path in Science-related fields, we feature part 2 of our interview with guest Brian Tomasik about Wild Animal Suffering and finally, Adam sheds some light on why our veins look blue.

  With Cristina filling in as host, Adam slings a segment about the real story behind American Sniper, while guest Brian Tomasik opens our eyes to Wild Animal Suffering in part 1 of 2 interview segments. Finally (last yet again…) Pat crunches the real math of Rent-To-Own business models, shocking Adam and Cristina in the process.

Help support the show by joining our Patreon!!! Get early access to our episodes every Tuesday! https://www.patreon.com/analogtalk   On this weeks show we have Shannon Tomasik FOLLOW Shannon!!! https://www.instagram.com/shannontomasik/ https://www.patreon.com/shannontomasik http://www.shannontomasik.com/     Pick up some Analog Talk MERCH!!!! https://analogtalkpodcast.bigcartel.com/   Head over to polaroidoriginals.com and use the code ANALOGTALK10 for 10% off on your purchase!!   Help support the show by joining our Patreon!!! https://www.patreon.com/analogtalk   And don't forget to follow us on Instagram  https://www.instagram.com/analogtalkpodcast/ https://www.instagram.com/timothymakeups/ https://www.instagram.com/chrisbphoto/   Thanks so much guys and we will see you next week!Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/analog-talk/exclusive-contentWant to advertise on this podcast? Go to https://redcircle.com/brands and sign up.