"Count me in as someone who, given the support of basic income, can and will live frugally and give my working self 100% towards ethical objectives, as I understand them."

Amen, brother/sister, amen. Exactly how I feel. Also I see you are empathetic towards animals. I have adopted animal welfare and animal rights as my single biggest ethical objective. After working for about 20 years on writing software for domains like transportation, telecommunications, social media, I have decided enough is enough and am going to work towards doing some work (mostly software-related) in the animal welfare area this year and increase it every year. I am not saying anyone who works in the other fields are bad, since people working on different things is what makes the world work. I just feel that I should separate work that pays the bills (Wb) and work that is meaningful (Wm) to me. And the goal is to minimize Wb and maximize Wm in the 24 hrs available. With basic income, Wb would be zero, so that would be ideal.

Just a side question on the issue of animal welfare, but how do you handle the paradox of the spider and the butterfly? I'm not sure it has an official name, so a simple description is that some animals kill other animals to keep themselves alive (such as a spider hunting a butterfly), so how do you provide for the welfare of both?

Good question. I am not opposed to the killing of animals, just the torture involved in the killing. If you see videos of how animals are farmed in slaughterhouses and warehouses, you wonder how humans have degenerated into something so vile that they dont even consider the pain and conditions these sentient beings go through.

I'm fairly certain spiders are not concerned about the suffering of the butterflies they consume..

Are you seriously comparing animals killing and eating other animals for food with what we do to animals and birds in slaughterhouses? Have you watched videos of slaughterhouses? Have you seen how fur is plucked off rabbits for angora, and feathers off birds for down jackets? In almost all cases, the skin also comes off and they are not even killed after the act but mercilessly left to die on their own. Almost everyone, even if they choose to ignore it, acknowledges the cruelty in the meat and farming industry.

Which shows the same amount of concern that animals give each other when they kill/eat/toy with them.

Maybe humans should do better because we can, but if I am going to go about stopping other humans from committing horrible treatment, why should I then 'make peace' with how other animals behave? But to make this problem worse, look at how some animals mate. If you were to only allow peaceful instances, the species would be extinct in three generations. But maybe that is the good thing to do, because the duty is to the individual and not the species. Perhaps the humane thing to do with the spider is to not kill it, but to stop reproduction so there are no more spiders killing butterflies.

Morality sure is weird.

Have you watched videos of spiders eating their prey? It's more horrific than what we do in most cases. They paralyze them, wrap them up, let them sit there to contemplate their demise, and then suck the blood out of them while they're incapacitated and conscious. Spiders are but one example of the horrific predator/prey dynamic in nature.

And to be clear, I'm just as horrified by our treatment of animals as you are but I've learned to make my peace with it. I'm just hoping that lab-grown meat becomes a viable alternative some day and we don't have to grow animals for food.

Just reiterate what you just said and see how it sounds. If everybody looked at atrocities and tries to "make their peace" with them, you can imagine how the world will turn out. I feel at this point you are just trying to defend your previous points, some of which are on very shaky ground.

>If everybody looked at atrocities and tries to "make their peace" with them, you can imagine how the world will turn out.

Which brings us back to the issue of the spider and the butterfly. Do you just make your peace that the butterfly will be tortured to death, or do you intervene, thus indirectly causing the spider to die a torturous death of starvation?

You intervene. Aware creatures eating each other is just a hack the universe needed (apparently) to get energy flowing into more and more complex, intelligent organisms. We can and will, given time and non-self-destruction, figure out a way to get all our energy from non-living sources (given some definition of the word living). With that kind of power, perhaps we could end warfare in general in our sphere of influence.

Although it is undeniable that there is a vast beauty to the living systems on Earth, that doesn't mean there couldn't be something more beautiful and alive... without so much... digestion.

The point is we can have everything we currently have without resorting to that torture (killing of cows and pigs in slaughterhouses, de-beaking of chickens). Thats what I am trying to eliminate or abate. Animals preying on other animals is natural, and also something they cannot avoid.

I figure these chickens wouldn't be alive if it weren't for us, and if asked, would they choose not to have ever existed in favor of existing and meeting a horrific demise?

Another thing to consider - if we genetically engineered chickens that couldn't feel pain, would it be unethical to debeak them?

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that animal cruelty is a non-issue? Or that its just a matter of perspective? Animal farming to me is reason enough for people to take up animal welfare as a cause. I could also add myriad other examples - trophy hunting, dog fighting, pulling out tusks out of elephants while they are alive.

No, I'm just giving you my justifications for ignoring the issue.

At no point did I want or expect that. I dont expect my causes to be taken up by anybody else. I can also give justifications for ignoring issues that are important to you or anybody else. Doesn't really serve any purpose.

Spiders don't have the luxury to be.

Spiders lack moral agency.

They do (lack moral agency), but you and I don't (at least we think we don't, but that is a different issue to save for elsewhere). So, while the spider may not be morally wrong for torturing its prey, I am morally wrong for allowing the spider to torture its prey when I am in a position to stop the spider.

In the case of humans this is obviously just not an issue, though, since we're perfectly capable of existing healthily without killing/eating meat/etc (in fact, it's way more efficient). For other animals, I don't know that we have an obligation to provide welfare for eg spiders and butterflies beyond our own habits, but it's an interesting question.

Have you already done or have leads on what kind of work specifically you can do in the animal welfare area?

Yes, I have a general idea. I will be polishing and refining it in the 2nd quarter of this year. As of now, it will mostly be a website that provides info about how to inculcate a cruelty-free lifestyle (hopefully without being too preachy). I want it to gather a much larger scope (maybe games or mobile apps to help people understand) but as of now I want to start somewhere, and that will be a simple static website.

Let me know when its up, and what you end up doing to further the cause. Would love to help if possible.

Speaking of which, one simple way to enact change in your own life is to minimize the use of animal products in daily actions - i.e. going vegan. You may have already done this, but the impact of an individual's decision to abstain from consuming any animal products has a huge effect.

Thanks for the offer. I am excited about this, and would love any help, even if its just in the form of feedback. And yes, I am vegan. I wouldn't dream of taking something up as a cause, if I wasnt already doing something in my life that helps it :)

Awesome. After many years of cognitive dissonance, I finally made the leap to veganism. It has been a challenge, but I am a firm believer that change starts within, and I should reflect that through my actions.

From a fellow vegan/vegetarian, big hug ! I don't get emotional much, but animals always make me tear up - just seeing them joyfully playing or giving companionship to a human. Sometimes it all seems hopeless, but enough of that thinking. We have work to do :)

I think I can add two items to the discussion.

1. People have been automating away other people's jobs for millennia. Even though this has been happening, poverty is at an all time low.

2. It's not your responsibility to make a herculean difference.

I can see that the fewer people (the knowledge of this that you're exposed to) there are that try to make a difference the larger your contribution needs to be to even out all the slackers. At least that's how we feel.

If we all (those who care) felt this way we'd all get stuck and not do anything.

The correct reaction (and only plausible) is to "do your part" as if you were one in 7 billion.

The reason why the richest of the rich (think Gates) have campaigns that are public is because they know, even with their wealth, that they cannot make a very large difference with a lot of people changing their habits be that giving or lifestyle.

> But what about everyone else? The longer I work in this field and the more I understand about optimization and physical processes, the worse I feel about the work I do and the work of most programmers. Not "but it's just a social app?!" people, but the people in medicine, law, education, small business, hardware, logistics, etc, all pushing business forward bit by bit, automating away the repetitive pieces and making it easier for those in monetarily advantageous positions to capture the flag.

That's a rather depressing way to look at it. As an engineer, nothing bothers me more than being forced to do a task that can be automated. It's dehumanizing in the same way that working an assembly line or picking fruit in a field is. It's called work for a reason - it's not fun, but it's gotta get done. Every time we automate a dehumanizing aspect of a job, the world collectively benefits.

> It's hard for me to be too happy when I see ubiquitous animal suffering in a system I'm helping to persist, seemingly towards the end of life on earth altogether. Why do I do it? I need money, and I'm only so strong for now. How can I cooperate when the biggest and greatest are of a world of defectors? Selfishness wins? It's all too easy to conclude, "I can't make a difference, not really", and the probability of making a difference drops to 0, prophesy fulfilled. After all, rent is due, student loan is due.

What are you doing to change things?

> Count me in as someone who, given the support of basic income, can and will live frugally and give my working self 100% towards ethical objectives, as I understand them. In the meantime, this whole "but we have it so great compared to everyone else!!" just makes me feel even worse, over-burdened. If I can't make a difference with all these advantages, without seemingly herculean efforts, then who?

Do you really need a basic income implementation for this to work? Can't you simply downsize your expenses to x/10 what they are now, work x/10 as much to pay for them, and do whatever you want for the other (10-x)/10 worth of time?

Or better yet, can't you start a non-profit that actually works on the issues you feel need fixing so you can earn an income while you do work 100% towards ethical objectives?

I don't mean to be rude, but it sounds like you have more excuses than answers.

"Do you really need a basic income implementation for this to work? Can't you simply downsize your expenses to x/10 what they are now, work x/10 as much to pay for them, and do whatever you want for the other (10-x)/10 worth of time?"

I am genuinely curious to know as to how this equation can be practically implemented. To be really effective in your non-work time, x would have to be at most 5 or less. There are multiple problems with this: 1. Reducing expenses to half is pretty tough given the biggest expense is rent/mortgage. 2. Reducing work to half is harder since there are not very many companies that are okay with 20 hrs or less a week. This also means you wont get health insurance.

I guess it can be done by moving to a different country with cheaper expenses, job hunting for a while till you find a company that meets your needs, etc, etc. But as a single person or a family in the US, this just doesnt make sense.

> To be really effective in your non-work time, x would have to be at most 5 or less

That doesn't sound very effective to me

> Reducing expenses to half is pretty tough given the biggest expense is rent/mortgage.

This is simply a matter of finding a location to live where rent is not a big expense. All you need is an internet connection. You don't have to live in the Bay Area to create software and there are plenty of cheap places to live, both in the U.S. and in other countries.

> Reducing work to half is harder since there are not very many companies that are okay with 20 hrs or less a week. This also means you wont get health insurance.

I take it you don't have a lot of experience freelancing, but it's very easy to find as much or little work as you're willing to do - I did it for years. I also find that the best health insurance policy is to take care of yourself. Beyond that, just get the highest deductible plan you possibly can and minimize your health risks (thankfully programming is not very hazardous).

> But as a single person or a family in the US, this just doesnt make sense.

If it doesn't make sense for a single person in the U.S. then who does it make sense for? Ask yourself who you're trying to convince, me, or yourself? Ever notice how much easier it is to come up with reasons why something is impossible than it is to actually try it for yourself?

I feel like you're missing the point here.

You've made it pretty clear that it's possible, if you're willing to jump through a bunch of hoops and are a programmer, to begin to have the privilege of an altruistic lifestyle. That is, the kind that will help thousands if not millions of persons to get higher quality of life.

'just move somewhere with low cost of living' - what about family and friends? non-profits are hiring in the middle of nowhere, I guess? what about most housing requiring a year-long contract? what about rural internet connectivity being a complete joke, and most cellular plans are by the GB?

'just take care of yourself and get a low deductible health insurance plan' - what about if you aren't healthy? what about if you have dependents? Where's the good care now that you're living away from cities? You're suggesting we move away from the best that humanity and technology has to offer?

'just cut down your expenses by 10x!' - ...you're joking, right? It's going to be really hard to live on $200/mo in any american city. Cost of living is going up everywhere, unless you're suggesting moving somewhere that's not growing. And wages have been stagnating for decades. See this post by Michael Church - https://www.quora.com/Why-do-software-engineers-make-so-much Only so much can be cut.

'just freelance! I did it, so can you' - times are changing, and that lifestyle simply isn't compatible with your average student coming out of our education systems. Also, freelancing suffers from being a chicken and egg kind of problem.

"If it doesn't make sense for a single person in the U.S. then who does it make sense for?"

Exactly. Hardly anyone. Our society is structured in such a way that it's very hard to be altruistic, compared to being selfish and seeking greater and greater pay through whatever job.

Have a social app idea? Here's $mil!! Uber for Z? $mil!! Oh it didn't work out? Ok, what else, what else...

Have a altruistic app idea that will improve the quality of life in a way that's hard to measure? Er haven't you heard? Not even schools can get funding. Teacher pay is frozen indefinitely.

Why does it take someone to be independently wealthy first, or live a lifestyle very much unlike the rest of the population, to be an effective altruistic in our society?

I have answers to all your points, but I can't help but think you'd just come up with ways to debunk all of them. All I can say is that I wholeheartedly suggest you take a step back and ask yourself why you see roadblocks everywhere instead of opportunities. Skepticism and even a little cynicism is understandable, and I indulge in it every once and a while too. But it seems to me like you're going out of your way to convince me (or more likely, yourself) that it's impossible to change your situation or make an impact in this world, and that's something you should really examine. I say this without a hint of derision or condescension.

Okay, let's take a step back. I mostly agree with you and I'm not at all offended; there are answers and the way is open. I can go against the flow of money and work for other reasons, especially if I'm a talented, determined programmer. In fact, I have made huge strides towards being able to dedicate myself fully to work I think is important. Made an impact? No, not in any direct way, not yet, but I am trying and moving step by step towards that ability and execution. Through autodidactism, frugal lifestyle, a productive career in software, and planning.

What about everyone else? The question was, 'how happy are you working as a programmer?", and I answered, "not particularly, because I'm in a favorable position to see how hard it is for everyone else, and how much harder it seems it's going to get as automation continues to consume existing business processes".

Can you really say with a straight face that more than a very lucky small minority of the 7.3+ billion people can realistically pursue a lifestyle of altruism? Many of them can't even work for money, but can only think on how to survive to the next day, the next week. You don't even have to go to a third world country to find it. How happy are those people, and what is your advice for them?

> Can you really say with a straight face that more than a very lucky small minority of the 7.3+ billion people can realistically pursue a lifestyle of altruism?

Honestly, I think the best thing we can do is to continue to try to innovate and automate. Global poverty has been dropping consistently for decades and that rate doesn't appear to be changing. I credit this to globalization, advances in technology, and relative peace throughout the globe because of strategic alliances and military stalemates.

The best thing we can do as engineers is continue to add real value to the world by automating as much as we can. Robots work for free, and despite what people love to parrot, efficiencies are enjoyed by everyone, not just the 1%.

In other words, simply contributing value to society through your work is altruistic. As opposed to those who don't work at all and contribute nothing, for whom I have very little sympathy or patience.

>I also find that the best health insurance policy is to take care of yourself

>minimize your health risks (thankfully programming is not very hazardous

health risks from being seated and sedentary all day are quite extreme.

Unless you meant they should join a gym and increase their expenses, thus increasing the amount of work they need to do to pay their bills.

So we've got:

health insurance,

car insurance,

gym membership,

housing/rent,

food,

gas,

internet connection,

electricity,

any current debt (student loans, car loans, mortgage, personal loans, etc),

any savings contributions for retirement.

So yeah, just cut all those expenses by 10x, have a job that allows you to work less than 20 hours/ week from anywhere, and have a altruistic goal that can also be met remotely without interacting with anyone ever.

Oh and also, be a programmer - remember that an altruistic life is reserved for very specific niches of society, altruism should never be the goal of the huddled masses.

> Unless you meant they should join a gym and increase their expenses, thus increasing the amount of work they need to do to pay their bills.

On what planet is a gym membership required to maintain a healthy lifestyle? How's this for an option: instead of owning/maintaining a car and paying for car insurance, ride a bike to work. Now you've killed two birds with one stone.

> internet connection

How about instead of paying for an internet connection you go to a library or hang out at a coffeeshop when you need to use it. Or go in with a neighbor to get it cheaper.

> any current debt (student loans, car loans, mortgage, personal loans, etc)

Sell the car, sell the house, and as far as the student loans go, consolidate them and pay the minimum for as long as you need to.

> So yeah, just cut all those expenses by 10x, have a job that allows you to work less than 20 hours/ week from anywhere, and have a altruistic goal that can also be met remotely without interacting with anyone ever.

Most people's expenses can be cut by about that much if they just give up the luxury of owning and operating a car and move to a region/neighborhood that has much cheaper rent (or take roommates gasp!). I have to image if your very survival depended on a 10x decrease in your expenses you'd be clever enough to make it happen.

> Oh and also, be a programmer - remember that an altruistic life is reserved for very specific niches of society, altruism should never be the goal of the huddled masses.

I don't remember me or anyone else ever saying that in this thread.

> ride a bike to work.

LOL, in a rural location that you suggested to lower rent? Work is likely to be at least a 20 minute commute by car, more than 15 miles each way for sure. ( the US average commute time is 25.4 minutes) Also, biking to and from work would reduce the time you are able to spend on your altruism even further.

>How about instead of paying for an internet connection you go to a library or hang out at a coffeeshop when you need to use it. Or go in with a neighbor to get it cheaper.

Because no one is going to hire a remote freelancer without an internet connection? are you even serious? this is laughable.

>sell the house

right cutting your expenses is much easier when youre not paying rent, youre right just be homeless! then you can help all the animals you want!

>as far as the student loans go, consolidate them and pay the minimum for as long as you need to.

right, still left with a student loan payment at the end of that, so this doesnt offer any solutions at all.

> luxury of owning and operating a car and move to a region/neighborhood that has much cheaper rent (or take roommates gasp!)

So where do you have in mind? you must have something really specific in mind because i cant think of a single area with very low cost of living and very high bikeable/walkable streets - please enlighten us as to the perfect place to live.

>I don't remember me or anyone else ever saying that in this thread.

right, but youre giving advice that says "you dont need basic income to be altruistic, you can just work remotely and live somewhere cheap, then work less and use your free time to be altruistic"

Wherein the 'working remotely' applies only to a very niche set of jobs (which all universally require an internet connection and specific set of skills)

Sorry man, your hypothetical solution is plainly not realistic.

In order to help save the lives of animals thats what this person should do?

They should:

Move to a low cost of living area

Work at most half as much as you do now (and have a job that is somehow OK with that)

sell your car

sell your house

consolidate all loans

get a remote freelance job

get rid of your internet connection and only use the library

cut all your costs by 10x

bike to work

oh right, also:

dont have a spouse

dont have children

work in a remote-friendly industry

desire to perform remote-friendly altruistic work

dont save for retirement

dont get sick

dont get injured

but yeah man, this sounds totally doable for anyone who wants to support a cause, this sounds like the type of society anyone would want to live in; way worse than providing people with a basic income enabling the entire country to pursue their altruism

Man, you're right. It's impossible. Oh well.

I didnt say its impossible.

I said its completely unreasonable.

Do you honestly think thats reasonable? For someone to be altruistic they /should/ have to make all those decisions and sacrifices?

If you do, i'd love to hear why you think it should be impossible for a secretary, or a janitor, or an accountant to be altruistic and to work towards altruistic goals. Or for that matter someone living in New york or san francisco. Should those cities be devoid of altruism because they are more expensive?

I don't think you've earnestly considered the implications of your suggestion and that was the point of my responding at all. "helping animals is easy! just quit your job and move across the country" echos exactly the ops sentiments that it takess a herculean effort to effect any change in todays economy. You disputed that by laying out a specific herculean effort and tried to brush it off as a simple life decision.

> Do you honestly think thats reasonable?

Not only do I think it's completely reasonable, I have done it myself and know others who have done it as well. Come to Minnesota, there's plenty of work, both remote and contract, and your cost of living can be very low depending on where you live. We also have great mass transit, are the most bike friendly city in the country, have the lowest unemployment rate in the country, and the best parks system in the country as well.

> If you do, i'd love to hear why you think it should be impossible for a secretary, or a janitor, or an accountant to be altruistic and to work towards altruistic goals.

Why can't these people work toward these goals in their spare time? Why does it have to be an all-or-nothing proposition? And if it does, why can't you start a non-profit where you can pay yourself a living wage and take donations from others who don't have the time to help but have the money to help. And why not just cut your expenses today, keep your high paying job, and donate your additional money to causes you believe in?

People can be altruistic without being rich or privileged. To suggest otherwise is completely offensive and short-sided. And being rich and privileged doesn't automatically equate to someone being more effective altruists. In fact, it's often the opposite case because their experiences are too isolated and foreign to be relatable to the causes they support (see charity-as-tourism).

But what it comes down to is you not wanting it to be hard to do something. And I'm not saying it isn't hard, because it is. But most things worth doing are hard, and complaining about them doesn't do anybody any good. Instead of complaining and creating long lists on internet forums of all the reasons why something is too hard to do you go and actually test your assumptions.

I don't mean to sound harsh but I can't help but respond to such negativity with anything other than exasperation. I can't motivate you, but I hope you find somebody or something that can because it sounds like you want to make a real difference in this world.

You are right, I dont have a lot of experience freelancing. And I agree that the differential between rents in different places in the US large enough that one can decrease or increase it significantly by moving. I do however think that "the best insurance policy is to take care of yourself" is not really something you can bank on. Unexpected things happen. You have to set something up to prevent that as much as you can.

In summary, I am not as opposed to your equation after this reply from you, but I still maintain its hard to do. As a challenge, I am going to see if I can accomplish it. Thanks for the kick in the back! :)

Btw I couldnt find your email in your profile. I would love to get in touch. If you can send me a quick note, (my email is in my profile) that would be great.

Great comment, I feel the same way sometimes :(