How must we get systematically organized to alleviate suffering in the world?
"Impartiality or cause-neutrality means that in order to be more effective, one should only look at the top level in the hierarchical classification, i.e. consider the whole world (instead of a specific country), all beings (instead of members from a specific species), and all diseases (instead of a specific type of diseases such as cancers)." That is why a theoretical and practical organization based on a global systematic approach is required for optimizing the alleviation of suffering in the world.
Mental health is a prerequisite. Denis Drescher's Dissociation for Altruists suggests great tips. If you work on suffering, you cannot deal with it as you do in normal life, because you have to hold the thing steadily in front of you, instead of embracing and dancing with it while you are naked. You have to look at it through a glass that does not let its too bright fire damage your eyes. I recommend goggles that let you see emotional negativity as a harmless abstract degree of unpleasantness/unwantedness: your cold reason will pretty quickly get used to the interpretation of the various shades. Likewise, take care to use gloves and even tongs when you handle suffering.
"The argument against" is that a Thanos-ing all humanity would not save the lives of other sentient beings, it would just allow those lives to continue being, much too often, miserable: human animals are currently the only chance for all animals to escape the grips of excessive suffering. The problem here, "somethoughts", is that you, like countless of us, value life so much more than the alleviation of suffering that you pose horribly absurd problems, and with such an unexamined value in the background lurks a nihilism that represents, to be frank, an existential risk.
Thank you for this work, Marius, it fits well into a systematic approach that should be developed, as suggested in Preparatory Notes for the Measurement of Suffering.
Hi Derek, just in case something in there would be useful to you: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OTCQlWE-GkY_V4V-OfJAr7Q-vJyIR8ZATpeMrLkmlAo/edit
It is very high-impact when survival is considered indispensable to have control over nature for preventing negative values from coming back after extinction.
You have this reference: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9001063/authors#authors where the first paragraph reads:
"In the last year, the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) released new ethical standards for professional conduct  and the IEEE released guidelines for the ethical design of autonomous and intelligent systems  demonstrating a shift among professional technology organizations toward prioritizing ethical impact. In parallel, thousands of technology professionals and social scientists have formed multidisciplinary committees to devise ethical principles for the design, development, and use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies . Moreover, many governments and international organizations have released sets of ethical principles, including the OECD Principles in 2019 , the Montreal Declaration in 2017 , the U.K. House of Lords report “AI in the U.K.: ready willing and able?” in 2018 , the European Commission High-Level Expert Group (HLEG) on AI in 2018 , and the Beijing AI Principles in 2019 . Indeed, recent reports indicate that there are currently more than 70 publicly available sets of ethical principles or frameworks for AI, most of which have been released within the last five years , , ."I am just wondering if your review would not be more complete by mentioning that kind of work. The IEEE for instance has this page: https://ethicsinaction.ieee.org/
We may sympathize in the face of such difficulties. Terminology is a big problem when speaking about suffering in the absence of a systematic discipline dealing with suffering itself. That's another reason why the philosophy of well-being is fraught with traps and why I suggest the alleviation of suffering as the most effective first goal.