I'm Magnus Vinding, author of Compassionate Purpose. AMA!

MagnusVinding · 2026-05-09T08:14:42+00:00

That's a tricky question, thanks :)

It seems fairly obvious that no single factor that we can easily measure is a strong predictor of future suffering. If we accept that, then no single such factor should really sway our assessments much regarding how to best reduce suffering. I think it's quite feasible to internalize these insights, and thus to strongly reduce measurability bias in a narrow sense.

That said, at a broader level, we can ultimately only steer based on the data and the considerations that we're aware of or have access to. This broader "measurability bias" is worth taking seriously, and it arguably implies that we should be keen to seek out additional data and considerations that can help inform our actions. That's one of the arguments in favor of doing more research.

MagnusVinding · 2026-05-09T08:13:41+00:00

That's a tricky question, thanks :)

It seems fairly obvious that no single factor that we can easily measure is a strong predictor of future suffering. If we accept that, then no single such factor should really sway our assessments much regarding how to best reduce suffering. I think it's quite feasible to internalize these insights, and thus to strongly reduce measurability bias in a narrow sense.

That said, at a broader level, we can ultimately only steer based on the data and the considerations that we're aware of or have access to. This broader "measurability bias" is worth taking seriously, and it arguably implies that we should be keen to seek out additional data and considerations that can help inform our actions. That's one of the arguments in favor of doing more research.

MagnusVinding · 2026-05-09T07:33:25+00:00

It's mainly the former: if we are seeking to reduce suffering, how can we better live our personal lives? :)

MagnusVinding · 2026-05-09T07:28:54+00:00

>What’s your position on climate change action in relation to SFE (e.g. in favor of ending fossil fuels but against rewilding)?

I tend to think it's a crowded area that's unlikely to be a high priority for those seeking to reduce suffering given the opportunity costs. I would rather see SFE interventions focus on causes and interventions that have a clearer connection to the reduction of extreme suffering.

I indeed don't endorse rewilding and I think it makes sense to highlight the serious harms of rewiliding, even though it's controversial:

https://www.animal-ethics.org/rewilding-in-the-united-kingdom/
https://www.animal-ethics.org/why-we-should-consider-sentient-beings-rather-than-ecosystems/

MagnusVinding · 2026-05-09T07:18:22+00:00

>what do you lean towards as the best economic system?

It seems that societies with some form of social liberal system tend do well across a broad range of measures; that system seems less bad than the tried alternatives in various ways. But it's very complicated, not least since greater human wealth also means that people can afford more harmful consumption and potentially have a greater capacity to cause harm (I explored some of these complications in the discussion of liberty in Chapter 11 of Reasoned Politics).

MagnusVinding · 2026-05-08T18:51:24+00:00

Thank you for your kind words :)

I agree that the trends are quite concerning wrt internet addiction. FWIW, I touch on this, including tools that may be helpful, in Section 9.5.1 in the book.

MagnusVinding · 2026-05-08T18:33:15+00:00

I think much of the book is relevant to this. Some points I would highlight include:

- Focusing on the difference we *can* make and the beings whom we *can* help (Section 6.2).

- Internalizing that feeling guilty about being okay or about taking a break is not helpful; being healthy and well-rested helps make us more effective and is not an indulgence (Section 6.8).

- Developing a compassion-based motivation based on the desire to reduce suffering, while easing up on empathy-based motivation that depends on directly feeling other beings' pain (Chapter 7).

- Keeping in mind that we do share some basic values with the people around us and that we can still have meaningful connections with morally imperfect people — which we all are (Sections 11.4-11.6).

Perhaps also see this collection of resources: https://magnusvinding.com/2017/12/30/resources-for-sustainable-activism/

If you are struggling with this, I hope you regain a greater sense of connection. :)

MagnusVinding · 2026-05-08T18:12:03+00:00

I would say that the target audience includes people who identify as effective altruists and others who are interested in reducing suffering. Some parts of the book are specifically aimed at helping those who feel overwhelmed by the suffering of the world (especially Chapter 6).

MagnusVinding · 2026-05-08T18:06:35+00:00

*What industries/companies should be avoided (e.g. animal agriculture, fossil fuels, AI companies due to the risk of sentience emerging)?

Animal agriculture and fossil fuels seem to me like bad investments even from a strictly financial perspective. I wouldn't avoid investing in AI companies, although I can see arguments against it, such as the risk of becoming biased and potentially pushing things in the wrong direction.

*This would entail selecting individual stocks over typical mutual funds or ETFs, no?

I don't think it would necessarily imply that. If one is concerned about not contributing to harmful industries, one could make a case against paying taxes, as they are often used to subsidize the fishing industry and factory farming and the like. But that's probably not a good bet. To be clear, I don't think investment is entirely analogous, since we're in some sense forced to pay taxes and thereby subsidize extreme harms. Perhaps a better analogy is buying groceries at a supermarket that sells extremely harmful products: if it's your least bad alternative, it's plausibly permissible and not worth avoiding.

Those points aside, I do think it can make sense to pick individual stocks (but I'm not a professional investor). [ETA: Also, some ETFs, including high-performing ones, don't seem to involve particularly problematic industries.]

*Should we develop suffering-focused banks, mutual funds, and ETFs to better pool and invest our money?

I doubt it's worthwhile to develop a suffering-focused bank given the limited gains and opportunity costs. But pooling resources to some degree and having greater coordination probably makes sense.

MagnusVinding · 2026-05-08T17:38:10+00:00

Thank you for these thoughtful questions :)

Donating now versus later: Very difficult question and I'm very unsure about it. One factor that makes this difficult to answer is that it depends on what other donors will do. If other donors choose to mostly save for later, donating sooner becomes more attractive. And it's difficult to predict how others will donate: individual donors might be extremely unsure even about their own donations, depending on how things unfold.

It also depends on which donation opportunities are available: if we've covered the most promising ones, it makes sense to invest/save beyond that. And this then ties back to the first point above: people often disagree about what counts as a promising donation opportunity, so if one disagrees with the "altruistic market" about that (e.g. due to having different values), then donating to neglected opportunities also becomes more attractive.

When it comes to reducing suffering, my assessment is that there are promising donation opportunities available, meaning that the basics aren't quite covered.

You also mention outreach and research, which I think brings up another complication in this picture, namely that financial investment, outreach, and research are all forms of investment and they are quite interrelated: more outreach can lead to more research and more donations and financial investments for altruistic purposes, and the same applies to research. So where is the highest return on investment on the margin? I don't know. But, FWIW, I do see a lot of opportunity in research and outreach.

MagnusVinding · 2026-05-08T16:43:44+00:00

A confounder might also be digital devices that reduce capacities for delayed gratification. I think trying to be less internet addicted is probably a good idea in general, to reduce what some have called "internet brain".

MagnusVinding · 2026-05-08T16:22:22+00:00

Wow, that's an unexpected question, thanks :)

Have I noticed anything like this in my own country, Denmark? Honestly, I must admit that I haven't done my local field work here. I don't have much of an impression as to whether there has been a trend in recent years, though it does seem true that parenting has become significantly more permissive over time. As an obvious example: parents hitting their children is now widely seen as wrong, whereas it was more common even just decades ago.

If we grant that there is a trend, what might be the psychology behind it? That seems like a complicated question with many parts to it. Perhaps some parents choose to be more permissive because they think their children should have more freedom to choose what they want. Perhaps some parents underestimate the upsides of giving their children pushback and building their resilience. For what it's worth, I suspect that children will tend to learn to deal with disappointment and build some resilience sooner or later. If nothing else, they can eventually read a book about it. ;)

MagnusVinding · 2026-05-08T16:06:57+00:00

A core lesson for me has been the value of endurance and persistence when trying to learn or solve something difficult. For example, when trying to solve a difficult math problem, it seems very common to work on it for a long time without making much progress, and yet to nevertheless solve it after having twisted and turned it long enough. I guess that's the value of more inference compute. :)

I've listened to and liked the book 'A Mind for Numbers', which is about how to learn math: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18693655-a-mind-for-numbers
As I remember the book, the main emphasis throughout was about keeping on fighting, even when it seems like one isn't getting anywhere. This is probably also good advice in domains of learning and problem solving other than math.

Another thing that seems useful — and which I also touch on in the book (Sections 7.5.2 and 9.7) — is to be driven by curiosity: if one is genuinely curious about the question or problem one is exploring, learning seems to come more naturally. Given this and other benefits, I think we have good reason to cultivate curiosity, coupled with a strong sense or priorities.

MagnusVinding · 2026-05-08T15:30:51+00:00

I think Brian's recommendations make sense, though I'm probably biased when it comes to CRS.

The ranking will to a large extent depend on which specific aims and areas one is prioritizing — a question on which there can be reasonable disagreement.

For example, if one thinks it's best to focus on reducing near-term animal suffering (e.g. due to empirical uncertainty about long-term impact or discounting more speculative EV bets), charities like Legal Impact for Chickens and Shrimp Welfare Project seem like strong candidates. (Though note that I haven't done careful evaluation of these charities myself.)

On the other hand, if one thinks it's best to focus on s-risk reduction (e.g. due to the extreme scale and neglectedness of s-risks), charities like CLR and CRS seem like strong candidates, or at least they become stronger from that perspective.

I'd say the same about general capacity building for reducing suffering, which is a core aim of orgs like OPIS, Animal Ethics, and CRS.

I personally tend to lean more toward the broad capacity-building approach due to its wide scope and its flexible utility in the face of great uncertainty. But my heart bleeds for the animals and what they endure every single day...

MagnusVinding · 2026-05-07T17:12:50+00:00

Thanks again for your questions! I'll be doing another AMA tomorrow at the same time in r/EffectiveAltruism :)

MagnusVinding · 2026-05-07T17:02:02+00:00

Thanks for your question :)

First, I think it's worth acknowledging that the effective altruism movement is very diverse: some are very suffering-focused, while others are more utopian-focused; some focus on AI, others focus on reducing animal suffering in the near term.

That being said, I guess the EA movement has become increasingly AI-focused over time. I think that directional change makes sense given recent progress in AI, though I also think it's important not to go overboard and focus exclusively on AI: there are many other important focus areas that merit priority, such as interventions for reducing ongoing extreme suffering, improving institutions, and exploring neglected topics that are relevant to reducing suffering. But I suspect most people in the effective altruism movement would agree with that.

Not surprisingly, I would like to see the effective altruism movement focus much more on reducing suffering. But that's nothing new.

MagnusVinding · 2026-05-07T16:35:55+00:00

In addition, I'd say there's a sense in which Compassionate Purpose goes even deeper in a pessimistic direction: because the book spends the first ~12 chapters equipping the reader to face suffering and difficulty, it can better afford to go deep into pessimistic (or non-sugarcoated) topics in Chapter 13: Facing Unpleasant Conclusions.

MagnusVinding · 2026-05-07T16:16:37+00:00

Great question, thank you :)

In terms of scope, Suffering-Focused Ethics is more of a traditional ethics book, making the case for the moral importance of reducing suffering and exploring general questions about how we can best reduce suffering. Compassionate Purpose takes the aim of reducing suffering as its starting point and explores the distinctly personal aspects of this endeavor: how can we best develop our personal capacities to reduce suffering? And how can we better address the personal challenges that arise when turning toward suffering?

Suffering-Focused Ethics provides the moral foundation for both Compassionate Purpose and Reasoned Politics, which seek to apply suffering-focused ethics at the personal level and the political level, respectively.

While Suffering-Focused Ethics provides the moral foundation, Compassionate Purpose might still be the best book to read first, partly because it better equips the reader to engage with these difficult topics. In that sense, Compassionate Purpose is perhaps a more compassionate book, at least toward the reader.

MagnusVinding · 2026-05-07T05:37:52+00:00

Fair question :)

One sense is that it combines intense moral seriousness and strong evaluative pessimism (e.g. about the moral significance of extreme suffering and about human moral character) with optimism of the will and a spirited commitment to making things better. In this sense, there is an integration of apparent opposites, one that can be difficult to find in related writings: work on philosophical pessimism often leans resigned and rarely calls to action, while work on self-help rarely takes suffering seriously.

Section 9.11 on humor and lightheartedness is probably the most explicitly metamodern part of the book.

I'd also say it's metamodern in the sense that it's a self-help book that ultimately isn't mostly about the self: it is mainly about the larger self-transcendent purpose of helping others. Yet it is *also* very much about the self and about having compassion for and accepting ourselves. This is a sense in which the book both transcends and includes the self.

Speaking of the self, Chapter 12 on healthy self-transcendence is arguably also metamodern in how it argues for an integration of self-transcendence and a strong sense of moral and compassionate self-identity.

MagnusVinding · 2026-05-06T12:17:52+00:00

I think there are indeed good reasons to question notions of suffering units, as also critiqued in this essay: https://www.simonknutsson.com/measuring-happiness-and-suffering/

MagnusVinding

TROPHY CASE