Policy suggestion for countries with government-funded health insurance or healthcare: People using death-with-dignity can receive part of the money that is saved by the government if applicable.
Which could be used to pay for cryonics among other things.
EA isn't (supposed to be) dogmatic, and hence doesn't have clearly defined values.
I think this is a big reason why people have chosen to focus on behavior and community involvement.
Community involvement is just instrumental to the goals of EA movement building. I think the outcomes we want to measure are things like career and donations. We also want to measure things that are instrumental to this, but I think we should keep those separated.
Related: my comment on "How have you become more (or less) engaged with EA in the last year?"
I think it would be good to differentiate things that are instrumental to doing EA and things that are doing EA.
Ex.: Attending events and reading books is instrumental. Working and donating money is directly EA.
I would count those separately. Engagement in the community is just instrumental to the goal of EA movement building. If we entengle both in our discussions, we might end up with people attending a bunch of events and reading a lot online, but without ever producing value (for example).
Although maybe it does produce value in itself, because they can do movement building themselves and become better voters for example. And focusing a lot on engagement might turn EA into a robust superorganism-like entity. If that's the argument, then that's fine I guess.
Somewhat related: The community's conception of value drifting is sometimes too narrow.
What are your egoistic preferences? (ex.: hedonism peak, hedonism intensity times length, learning, life extension, relationships, etc.)
(why) do you focus on near-term animal welfare and poverty alleviation?
yeah, 'shift' or 'change' work better for neutral terms. other suggestion: 'change in reveal preferences'
I see, thanks!
Ok yeah, my explanations didn't make the connection clear. I'll elaborate.
I have the impression "drift" has the connotation of uncontrolled, and therefore undesirable change. It has a negative connotation. People don't want to value drift. If you call rational surface-value update "value drift", it could confuse people, and make them less prone to make those updates.
If you only use 'value drift' only to refer to EA-value drift, it also sneaks in an implication that other value changes are not "drifts". Language shapes our thoughts, so this usage could modify one's model of the world in such a way that they are more likely to become more EA than they value.
I should have been more careful about implying certain intentions from you in my previous comment though. But I think some EAs have this intention. And I think using the word that way has this consequence whether or not that's the intent.
This seems reasonable to me. I do use the shortcut myself in various contexts. But I think using it on someone when you know it's because they have different values is rude.
I use value drift to refer to fundamental values. If your surface level values change because you introspected more, I wouldn't call it a drift. Drift has a connotation of not being in control. Maybe I would rather call it value enlightenment.
I think another term would better fit your description. Maybe "executive failure".
I don't see it as a micro death
Me neither. Nor do I see it as a value drift though.