Summary: Positivity is useful as a motivational tool, and underrated as a communication norm. The more positive one's interpretation of observable facts and their implications be, the greater one's capacity to solve hard problems, and the more persuasive one's arguments are to pessimistic skeptics.

Greetings all. For years I have followed the Effective Altruism community from an outsider's perspective, by talking to friends inside the "movement" and consuming content on this forum and in the broader rationalist community. So, I please forgive me should my opinions clash with your experiences, or my narrative contradict your understanding of the facts.

When I observe EA and Longtermism I am inspired to witness a community of people who are determined to act in the long-term interest of "Life". (please forgive me if that doesn't accurately describe how you see yourself)

I am especially grateful to Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nick Bostrom for opening my mind to the possibility that the development of powerful autonomous computational systems poses a significant threat to our collective future, and to Sam Bankman-Fried for his actions especially on pandemic preparedness.

And yet, I worry about the vibe that I interpret in the discourse around the future: that there exist multiple existential risks, and that we are insufficiently coordinated in stopping them, or that such attempts are indistinguishable from futility. It's not just or primarily in EA, this vibe is common online and in society broadly—the vibe is "doom".

It's true. There are significant risks that jeopardize the future, and it's really miserable to even think about. So, I (personally, self-interestedly) choose to focus my imagination on the right side of the distribution of possible futures. In the limited spectrum of futures I can model/imagine, humans actually mostly use technology for good, advanced technology mostly is useful and not pathologically on a path of world domination, and in many ways, the problems we have lead to innovative solutions and positive evolution.

I see the age of AI, climate change, and biotech as one of accelerating economic growth, ending poverty, elimination of a broad swath of diseases, ending factory farming and animal cruelty, and that such an increase in global living standards will usher in waves of knowledge-creation, cultural innovation, and flourishing beyond our ability to currently conceive. Obviously these changes take time and probably never complete, in many ways things will get worse before they get better, and even when robots are everywhere and luxury is ubiquitous, life will still be a struggle, a daily war to improve upon yesterday's self.

As a human, I find it essential to my personal mental health and overall well-being to interpret the problems of the world as opportunities to develop problem-solving capacity. I want to live in a world where humanity can solve big problems. And for what it's worth, I actually see that world on the horizon. Furthermore, I believe that publicly expressing positive views of the future is an underratedly important part of the process of attaining the types of futures where the big problems get solved.

To paraphrase Elon Musk, we should be excited about the future when we wake up in the morning.

So, my plea to this forward-thinking community, a community that is already a major force for good, a community of great intelligence, a community to which I am honored to offer my perspective, is to consider the differences in connotation between "building a better future" and "saving the world". All people work to build a better future in their own more-or-less effective way, but none but the most self-assured would claim to be capable of saving a doomed world. With what track record could one claim to be qualified to be a world-saver?

Further, it's the purpose of the latter to serve the former, but "saving the world" as an end goal is too easily spun into "elites trying to maintain the status quo and score points for doing so" to a skeptical, pessimistic observer.

In my view the strongest critique of capital P Philanthropy is that giving has been at times motivated by vanity, PR, politics, the maintenance of power, etc. Now, I personally hold the philanthropists of the Gilded Age in relatively high regard, but they, like the tech/business elite of today, were often not liked by historians, journalists, politicians (to put it mildly). Then again, I also often hold the donors and managers of "high-overhead" "ineffective" charities in relatively high regard, and even the ones with a "misguided mission".

Forgive me if that reads as pathologically positive; I think it's important to affirm the good intentions of people even, especially while questioning their results. I may not agree with particular decisions, but I value  effort and dedication regardless.

So, the "consequentialist approach" of EA and Longtermism, is in my opinion a clear reflection of deep critical thinking about what actually matters. As such, it is I think categorically different from "ad-hoc-positive-vibes-based" giving.

How is EA defined if not in contrast to the "self-serving" side of philanthropy that historians, journalists, and politicians dislike? Is EA not itself built on critical thinking and the lessons of history and data? One will have supporters and critics no matter what, so why bother oneself with people's opinions?

To synthesize, I claim that "positivity" is valuable, not as a social maneuver to look good, but intrinsically; it has utility to me and in my "general model of the human mind". Indeed, a cynical take on giving is that donors buy positive vibes. But that's why it's so important to cultivate/produce positivity and happiness as an individual and in a community: so that one has less need to spend money to acquire it. Because there're lots of good important things to do that don't yield such a visceral dopamine hit/ego boost.

Nuance: Authenticity is far more persuasive/like-able/character-building than fake positivity, and truth is more important than good feelings. The point is that we are living through magnificent transformative revolutionary change, which means immense uncertainty, on both extremes. And that makes this is a wonderful time to be alive.  Each and every one of us has an awesome opportunity to do something meaningful and important. Now is a point in history when it's possible for quite an astonishing number of people to have "astronomically positive" impact on the future of existence. I find this deeply motivational.

Finally, I want to give credit to "pessimism": namely, that fear creates urgency that drives action. With that in mind, I hardly consider this a critique of X-risk discourse or even "doomerism". I fully recognize the necessity and value of such hard thoughts, and respect and appreciate the work of the rare courageous people who don't shy away from considering the worst possible paths history may take.

How can one be a "critical thinker" without considering the most dangerous challenges that we face? How can one solve even the most tractable of real-world problems without critical thinking? And how can we be doomed if we dare to see danger as a demand to do better for our descendants?