HOW CAN WE BEST REDUCE SUFFERING?
Our mission is to reduce severe suffering, taking all sentient beings into account. We develop ethical views that give priority to suffering, and research how to best reduce suffering. Our top priority is to avoid worst-case futures.
Research
Our work focuses on the following main areas:
We develop and discuss ethical views that give special priority to the reduction of suffering.
We explore scenarios that might result in significant levels of intense suffering on an astronomical scale (s-risks), and aim to better understand how to prevent such worst-case outcomes.
We research what our priorities should be at a practical level so as to reduce suffering in the most effective ways.
Read the books
Avoiding the Worst:
How to Prevent a Moral Catastrophe
From Nineteen Eighty-Four to Black Mirror, we are all familiar with the tropes of dystopian science fiction. But what if worst-case scenarios could actually become reality? And what if we could do something now to put the world on a better path?
In Avoiding the Worst, Tobias Baumann lays out the concept of risks of future suffering (s-risks). With a focus on s-risks that are both realistic and avoidable, he argues that we have strong reasons to consider their reduction a top priority. Finally, he turns to the question of what we can do to help steer the world away from s-risks and towards a brighter future.
“One of the most important, original, and disturbing books I have read. Tobias Baumann provides a comprehensive introduction to the field of s-risk reduction. Most importantly, he outlines sensible steps towards preventing future atrocities. Highly recommended.”
— David Pearce, author of The Hedonistic Imperative and Can Biotechnology Abolish Suffering?
Reasoned Politics
In Reasoned Politics, Magnus Vinding lays out a path toward politics based on ethical reasoning and empirical evidence. He argues that a better approach to politics is both conceivable and realistic. Modern discoveries in political psychology hint at new, improved norms for political discourse and cooperation, while also pointing to concrete ways in which such improvements can gradually be realized.
Having outlined a general framework for reasoned politics, Vinding proceeds to apply this framework to real-world policy issues. Based on an ethical foundation that takes the suffering of all sentient beings into account, he explores various lines of evidence to infer which policies seem most helpful for alleviating severe suffering.
We missed it, now we have it. The Magnum Opus for a Reasoned Politics for all, humans and animals alike. I heartily recommend it to anyone who is interested in a rational approach to politics.
— Sabine Brels, international animal lawyer
Suffering-Focused Ethics:
Defense and Implications
In Suffering-Focused Ethics: Defense and Implications, Magnus Vinding argues that the reduction of suffering deserves special priority, and explores how we can best reduce suffering in practice.
Suffering-Focused Ethics provides the most comprehensive presentation of suffering-focused arguments and views to date in a single place, including a moral realist case for minimizing extreme suffering. The book then explores the all-important issue of how we can best reduce suffering in practice, and outlines a coherent and pragmatic path forward.
Suffering-Focused Ethics will change its readers, opening new moral and intellectual vistas. This could be the most important book you will ever read.
— Jamie Mayerfeld, professor of political science at the University of Washington,
author of Suffering and Moral Responsibility and The Promise of Human Rights
Blog
CRS Fundraiser 2023
As we approach the end of the year, we’d like to take this opportunity to thank you for your ongoing support of CRS and our research.
Tobias Baumann Appears on the Sentientism Podcast
CRS co-founder and researcher, Tobias Baumann, has appeared on the Sentientism Podcast for a discussion with host Jamie Woodhouse.
2022 Financial Report
As part of our commitment to transparency and accountability, CRS is pleased to share details of our budget and finances. We are grateful for our donors’ support, which helps us to continue our work and implement our Strategic Plan. Should you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to us, or use our […]
Avoiding the Worst Audiobook Available Now
CRS Co-Founder Tobias Baumann’s introduction to s-risks, Avoiding the Worst: How to Prevent a Moral Catastrophe is now available as an audiobook. Professionally voiced by Adrian Nelson, the full audio can be listened to on Audible or there is a free video version now available on the new CRS YouTube channel. A summary of Avoiding […]
Tobias Baumann Discusses S-Risks & Avoiding the Worst on FLI Podcast
Center for Reducing Suffering Researcher and Co-Founder Tobias Baumann has appeared on the Future of Life Institute podcast to discuss S-Risks (risks of astronomical future suffering), suffering-focused ethics, and his book Avoiding the Worst: How to Prevent a Moral Catastrophe. In the first part of a wide-ranging conversation with the podcast’s host Gus Docker, Tobias […]
Popular views of population ethics imply a priority on preventing worst-case outcomes
A wide variety of views can support a focus on preventing worst-case outcomes. More than that, it appears that the views of population ethics held by the general population also, on average, imply a priority on preventing futures with large numbers of miserable beings. My aim in this post is to elaborate on this point […]
2022 End-of-Year Fundraiser
2022 has been an exciting year for us. It saw the release of Magnus Vinding’s book Reasoned Politics, Tobias Baumann’s book Avoiding the Worst: How to Prevent a Moral Catastrophe. In addition, we published several essays on suffering–focused ethics. We are now raising money to consolidate our financial situation. We believe that CRS’s open-ended research […]
New book on s-risks
I have just published my new book on s-risks, titled Avoiding the Worst: How to Prevent a Moral Catastrophe. You can find it on Amazon, read the PDF version, or listen to a provisional audio version. The book is primarily aimed at longtermist effective altruists. I wrote it because I feel that s-risk prevention is a somewhat neglected priority area in […]
Reply to the “evolutionary asymmetry objection” against suffering-focused ethics
An objection that is sometimes raised against suffering-focused ethics is that our intuitions about the relative value of suffering and happiness are skewed toward the negative for evolutionary reasons, and hence we cannot trust our intuition that says that the reduction of suffering is more valuable and more morally important than the creation of happiness. […]
Open position: Communications Manager
We’re looking for a Communications Manager to help us communicate our mission to broader audiences. About the role In this role, you’ll work at the heart of our organisation. You’ll help improve our online and social media presence, host high-impact events, and stay in touch with our supporters and donors. Above all, you will continually […]
Comments on Mogensen’s “The weight of suffering”
Andreas Mogensen’s paper “The weight of suffering” presents an interesting argument in favor of the axiological position that “there exists some depth of suffering that cannot be compensated for by any measure of well-being” — a position he calls “LTNU” (Mogensen, 2022, abstract). Mogensen then proceeds to explore how one might respond to that argument […]
Reply to Chappell’s “Rethinking the Asymmetry”
My aim in this post is to respond to the arguments presented in Richard Yetter Chappell’s “Rethinking the Asymmetry”. Chappell argues against the Asymmetry in population ethics, which roughly holds that the addition of bad lives makes the world worse, whereas the addition of good lives does not make the world better (other things being […]
Reply to Gustafsson’s “Against Negative Utilitarianism”
This post is a reply to Johan Gustafsson’s draft paper “Against Negative Utilitarianism”. Gustafsson acknowledges that for many common objections raised against negative utilitarianism (NU), there are corresponding objections that can be raised against classical utilitarianism (CU) (see e.g. Knutsson, 2021a). Hence, as he writes, “these objections have little force when we assess the relative […]
Point-by-point critique of Ord’s “Why I’m Not a Negative Utilitarian”
The following is a reply to Toby Ord’s “Why I’m Not a Negative Utilitarian” (2013). Ord’s essay seems to have been quite influential, and is often cited as an essay that makes strong points against negative utilitarianism. While a number of critical replies have already been written, I still think there are many problematic things […]
Five recommendations for better political discourse
Introduction Political decisions arguably represent the linchpin of human decision-making, constraining and influencing every choice we make. And our political system is currently operating far from ideally, to put it mildly. This renders it uniquely important that we do better. From a longtermist perspective, what matters most is that we advance politics over the long […]
2021 Year in Review and Our Plans for 2022
Now that 2021 is over, we thought this would be a good time to reflect on what we accomplished during the last year, and what our goals are for 2022. Our Work in 2021 Accomplishments The following are some of the things we achieved during 2021: Transparency We think it’s important to be transparent about […]
Magnus Vinding Discusses Upcoming Book on the Utilitarian Podcast
CRS researcher and co-founder Magnus Vinding made a recent appearance on the Utilitarian Podcast hosted by Gus Docker. Magnus begins by presenting a number of arguments in favor of suffering-focused views and then proceeds to discuss their practical implications. In particular, he explores how we can best reduce suffering for people, animals, and potentially even […]
Comparing repugnant conclusions: Response to the “near-perfect paradise vs. small hell” objection
Minimalist views of value hold that “the less of a given bad, the better”, and further hold that the only form of positive value that exists is the reduction of bads (e.g. unmet needs). Negative utilitarianism is an example of a minimalist view, which specifically says “the less suffering, the better”. An objection sometimes raised […]
Tobias Baumann on the Sentience Institute Podcast
CRS researcher and co-founder Tobias Baumann recently appeared as a guest on the Sentience Institute Podcast. The podcast, hosted by researcher Jamie Harris, typically focuses on moral circle expansion and animal welfare. Tobias was featured in two episodes. The first episode covers moral circle expansion, cause prioritization, and s-risks. In particular, Tobias explains what moral […]
We’re Hiring!
We’re now hiring for remote roles, including but not limited to operations, growth, and research.
S-risk impact distribution is double-tailed
Discussions about s-risks often rest on a single-tailed picture, focused on how much suffering human civilization could risk causing. But when we consider the bigger picture, including s-risks from alien civilizations, we see that human civilization’s expected impact on s-risks is in fact double-tailed. This likely has significant implications. For instance, it might mean […]
2020 End-of-Year Fundraiser
2020 has been an exciting year for us. We officially set up the Center for Reducing Suffering (CRS) as an organisation, launched this website, and published articles on suffering–focused ethics, s-risks, and cause prioritisation. We are now raising money to consolidate our financial situation. We believe that CRS’s open-ended research programme on how to best […]
On fat-tailed distributions and s-risks
It is sometimes suggested that since the severity of many kinds of moral catastrophes (e.g. wars and natural disasters) fall along a power-law distribution, efforts to reduce suffering should focus on “a few rare scenarios where things go very wrong”. While this argument appears quite plausible on its face, it is in fact a […]
Longtermism and animal advocacy
There is a common tendency among effective altruists to think of animal advocacy as having little value for improving the long-term future. Similarly, animal advocates often assume that longtermism has little relevance to their work. Yet this seems misguided: sufficient concern for nonhuman sentient beings is a key ingredient in how well the long-term future […]
Note on Pummer’s “Worseness of nonexistence”
In “The Worseness of Nonexistence”, Theron Pummer makes an interesting argument that suggests that a failure to create new people can be as bad as cutting an existing person’s life short. I here briefly sketch out a reply to Pummer that can be made, in some version, from a variety of different views. Outline […]