Thanks for the thoughtful comments first of all.

What I am sensing or seeing right now is in order to promote AGI risks and X risks, I am seeing people downplay/lower ranking the importance of the people who already cannot see this beautiful world. It does not feel logical to me, that because there are always future issues that affect everyone’s lives, the issues that cause some people to be already on the miserable side should not be addressed.

The problem here is that we are not have the same starting line for “everyone” now, and therefore progress towards saving everyone with future focus might not mean the same thing. I maybe should draw a graph to demonstrate my point. As opposed to only consider problems that concerns everyone, I think we should also focus a bit more on an inclusive finish line that is connected to current realities of not the same starting line. If this world continues to be this way, I also worry if the future generations would like it, or would want to be brought into this.

I understand the utilitarian intentions, but I myself also believe we could incorporate equalitarian views. And in fact, a mindset or rules promoting equality or along similar lines actually helps everyone. In many situations a human will be one of those people at some point in their life in some way. Maybe a person’s home suddenly became war zone. Maybe got disabled suddenly. Maybe experienced sexual assault for self or loved one. Establishing a good system to reduce these and prevent these helps human in the future as well. I would like to formalize this a bit more later.

Both views/also current vs future views should really joint forces, as opposed to exclude each other. There are many tasks that I see are shared such as social good mindsets and governance.

Some background about me; myself believe in looking into both, and believe in value in looking into both. It would be dangerous to focus on only one either way by promoting another, and gradually we overlook/go backwards on things that we have started.

Do you think people are firmly aware of this in the first place? I would love to hear that the answer is yes.

On solutions - I am not sure yet on universal solution, as it is very dependent on each case. For some problems, some solutions would be around raising awareness and international cooperation on educating human who hurts other human, pushing for law reforms, and alternative sentencing. Solutions aside, I am not sure if I am seeing enough people even care about these. My power alone is not enough, that’s why we need to join force.

I am worried about how people would down vote on this on this platform. I don’t think worrying about long term is bad, or it should not be looked into, but at the same time, it should not be the only thing we care either. This worries me as "we should only work on long term X risks, but nothing about the people now, and any comments that seek to say otherwise is wrong" type of sentiment is what I am seeing more and more.

There is danger in overlooking current risks. Besides obvious reasons on we are ignoring current people, from the future perspective we would be missing the connection between the future and the present, and missing the opportunity to practice applying solutions to reality. And thanks for the link to effective altruism, and I am aware of the initiative/program after attending an introductory program. It feels to me it was merging a couple different directions, and somehow it felt like recent efforts were mostly on long term X risks. For its original goal, I am also not entirely sure if it considers fairness enough, despite an effort to consider scarcity. An EA concept I see some people not understanding enough is the marginal part - marginal dollar, and marginal labor, which should allow people to invest in a portfolio of things. Would welcome any recommended readings further on this.

If you look into a bit more history on social justice/equality problems, you would see we have actually made many many progress (https://gcdd.org/images/Reports/us-social-movements-web-timeline.pdf), but not enough as the bar was so low. These also have made changes in our law. Before 1879, women cannot be lawyers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women_lawyers_in_the_United_States). On war, I don't have too much knowledge myself, so I will refrain from commenting for now. It is also my belief that we should not stop at attempt, but attempt is the first step (necessary but not sufficient), and they have pushed to real changes as history shown, but it will have to take piles of piles of work, before a significant change. Just because something is very hard to do, does not mean we should stop, nor there will not be a way (just like ensuring there is humanity in the future.) For example, we should not give up on helping people during war nor try to reduce wars in the first place, and we should not give up on preventing women being raped. In my opinion, this is in a way ensuring there is future, as human may very well be destroyed by other humans, or by mistakes by ourselves. (That's also why in the AI safety case, governance is so important so that we consider the human piece.)

As you mentioned political party - it is interesting to see surveys happening here; a side track - I believe general equality problems such as "women can go to school", is not dependent on political party. And something like "police should not kill a black person randomly" should not be supported just by blacks, but also other races (I am not black). 

Thanks for the background otherwise. 

I think this is conditioning on one problem with one goal, but I haven’t thought about the other good collectively (more of a discussion on consequentialism).

For best of personal ability, I think the purpose is to distinguish what one can do personally, and what one can do to engage collaboratively/collectively, but I need to think through that better it seems, so that is a good question.

My reason on the na is: have intention, no execution/enough execution, did good is more like an accident, which is the same with no intention, no execution, and did good.

No, some of your points are fine, and it is not you do not embrace my goals, but seems you try to prevent me from pursuing mine, by trying convince me or everyone to work on one thing alone, and to not do anything about war, rape nor murder. (though not related to morality yet). First it is not if you not embrace these goals personally, it is that you downplay them, and seem to argue everyone need to pursue a single goal to prevent AI risks, and I felt pushed even when I have already mentioned in this thread that both needs attention. You have mentioned addressing war, rape, and others are distractions.Even that is up to perspectives and though I disagree, I did not find it completely related to morality yet; it could be due to your lack of relatable experiences perhaps and your demographics, and I wrote a very long explanation explaining why that could happen with people's experience, groups, and about power, and everything. (pasted those under this comment too). It is even fine to argue, that you think they are hard to solve, but you cannot say, that rape is related to something flourishing in humans. Language matters. I will stand by my words unless you acknowledge this claim/language is wrong/a mistake. Note that there is a difference between "low moral standard" (your language) and "if prevalent, the moral standard that does not lead to successful AI alignment" (my language). I have never accused your entire person/view personally, I am criticizing this view/claim. There are many replies on this thread that promote values that you are aligned with, including yourself and I didn’t have problem with, but this language is over the boundary, and I am not posting that quotation here casually.

=> What made your comment itself wrong, is that you seem to have the horrifying interpretation of what rape is. Rape is NOT erotic excitement, and that is very important, and that claim is outrageous. If you didn't realize that before, and now you have, it does not hurt to admit that.  Moral standards always improve as humans learn and gather more information. As I have linked in my link, it is about abuse and power. I have directly pointed this out multiple times in the message, you still repeatedly say it is a sexual instinct, which I have made clear it is not, nor it means nobody should tackle this, nor "dangerous distraction".

If you mention emotion or something personal as opposed to arguing on the actual thing - I myself was also extremely bothered and frustrated by the comment on rape is erotic excitement, and could not take this off my mind and was talking to my friends about such claims, mostly identifying with women, and we were all very disappointed/horrified about such claims. Many many criminals use that to make excuses. Do you know how many people suffer, from that one sided "erotic excitement" even for someone there is anything sexual to it at all? There is nothing flourishing about this. Life is short, and I need to try my best to correct these (these kinds of comments are exactly reasons why I am worried, and why I try to raise awareness and educate) even if that means I suffer mentally from it. If you do not wish to be criticized, maybe be careful with how you present your arguments, and what is sensible to say, and what is not. If you are wrong/truly didn't know/believed the wrong thing, then maybe update your belief. 

Thanks for commenting.

I don't see the need to remove human properties we cherish to remove/reduce murder nor rape. Maybe war. Rape especially, is never defensive. That is an extremely linear way of connecting these.

Particularly, it is the claim that rape is in any way remotely related to erotic excitement that I found outrageous. That is simply wrong, and is an extremely narrow and perpetrator centered way of thinking. Check out the link that is linked in my comment if you want to learn more on myths about rape.

For the do not care point - my personal belief is that if one believes that those should not be taking up resources to be worked on, even not oneself but also other people, I do not see too much of a difference on with not care from consequentialist point of view/simply practically, or the degree of caring is small/not big enough to agree on allocation of resources/attention, while in my initial message, I have already linked multiple cases recently that has happened. (The person mentioned that working on these are "dangerous distractions", not for himself, "ourselves", seems to say society as a whole.) 

Finally, the thread post is not on the user alone; it is a bit standalone to reflect on the danger of not having correct awareness or attention on these issues collectively, and how it is related to successful AI alignment as well.