12 ms·

The ‘effective altruists’

51 points by akbarnama 11y ago

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
msilenus 11y ago
I've read this book together with the two books about Effective Altruism bei Peter Singer (The Life You Can Save and The Most Good You Can Do), and I have to say these books have really changed my life. I know it sounds cheesy, but I've never read books that had such a lasting influence on me. Those books provide just the right rational and scientific arguments and have shown me with how much cognitive dissonance I, as a supposed rational person, ran through my life.
- a3voices 11y ago
  I'd argue that being an effective altruist actually makes you less rational. As part of your genetic fitness, your brain is optimized for survival, reproduction, and keeping your children alive. If you're in the middle class and you give your money away then it goes against those objectives.
  - sullyj3 11y ago
    But rationality isn't about effectiveness in achieving the things you are evolutionarily optimised for, because those things don't necessarily line up with the things you want! There's no a priori reason to value evolutionary goals over goals you pick for yourself. That would be an appeal to nature. If helping other people is really something you care about and value intrinsically, then rationality is about finding the most effective ways and means of helping other people.
  - gglitch 11y ago
    By extension of that logic, the brain is not geared for reason, which I think is probably true.
    - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
      The brain is geared for resource-bounded abductive reasoning, a job it performs with remarkable efficiency.
      - gglitch 11y ago
        Does it? I don't know. Obviously results will vary. I think the standout example of the brain's wiring no longer being optimal for modern life is of people's physiological responses to anxiety. Elevated heartrate and adrenaline release are all great when you're being chased by a predator, but extremely unhelpful when you're taking a standardized test that will determine how much tuition you pay later on, or delivering a presentation to a prospective employer.
    - a3voices 11y ago
      Well I think the fundamental issue is that it is impossible to rationally prove which values are more important than other ones. You have to almost arbitrarily decide. For example you could hypothetically design an artificial intelligence that is optimized for creating paperclips. As a person, you could decide your life goal is to drink as much glue as possible or something stupid like that. But since it goes against your survival instinct and cultural values (and everyone else's) you will just be a dysfunctional crazy person. Biologically you could define a "good" value system as one which is conducive to you having offspring. Ethics, morality, cultural values, etc. are not necessary for that although they might provide intellectual simplifications that help.
      - ionised 11y ago
        Survival instinct isn't the same as reproductive isntinct though. I have the will to survive but zero desire to have children.
  - Kurtz79 11y ago
    I'd argue that survival, reproduction, and keeping your children alive have more to do with instinct and subconscious, and rationality is trying to go beyond this basic movers.
  - edanm 11y ago
    The objectives of "your genes" do not have to be your objectives. So you can be rational, but have different goals from what you were "meant" to (for some value of the word "meant").
    - a3voices 11y ago
      Well perhaps that is true but then you will experience a lot more mental incongruity. For example, gay and transgendered people have much higher suicide attempt rates. The more you deviate from traditional family values, the unhappier you will likely feel. There is a big correlation I bet.
      - edanm 11y ago
        I don't think what you're saying is true re: mental incongruity. And I don't think your example of gay suicides proves it, as it's hard to know what is the cause (and many people will point out, and I would agree, that there are many other causes of gay suicides, e.g. that our culture is oppressive toward gay people).
      - ionised 11y ago
        Traditional family values as we understand them have not always been how families worked. Traditions can change. Traditions that don't serve you any purpose personally should be discarded.
    - nine_k 11y ago
      To put in in other words, whatever your (gene-induced) instincts may urge you to do may not be the best strategy to successfully reproduce. Humans are a culture-based species. Helping your culture may be reciprocated by increased chance of your progeny surviving and prospering. Also, cultures (at least microbial ones) with a certain percent of altruists grow faster than cultures without them, even though altruists' genes become less represented: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5911/272.abstract http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5911/272.abstract
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Genes are just part of the picture. Culture is as important - cultures evolve and are selected for fitness in almost the same way as genetics. This is a mammal thing, especially vivid in humans. In fact, culture has been shaping genes far more than genes, culture. In the last 50,000 years Homo Sapiens genetic adaptation has increased manyfold, likely in response to environmental changes brought on by culture (agrarian societies, towns and cities, large-scale cooperative venture etc). So the 'genes rule the organism' idea has been untrue for 1000 generations, for humans.
    - a3voices 11y ago
      This should go without saying but if you go against your culture, your chances of finding a life partner and having children are less likely. So genetically you are tailored to "fit in".
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        Much of our genetic adaptation agrees with this - growing up with infantile features (like extreme social behavior, empathy, imprinting on other adults for years after birth, smaller face/jaws, far less hair) helps us live in larger groups in close proximity i.e. villages, towns and cities.
      - edanm 11y ago
        You're also genetically tailored to have lots of sex, theoretically in order to reproduce, but that doesn't prevent people from using birth control. You're genetically programmed to eat lots of fat, theoretically because it would better for you, although these days with easy abundance of foo it's much less heathy. Worth mentioning that you might be genetically predisposed to do something to achieve some end goal, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with or actually try to achieve that end goal.
        JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        And remember, genes benefit the line not just the individual. Even insect colonies have non-reproducing members. If some folks don't reproduce but protect and nurture other clan children, this increases the next generation's gene survival, then those genes continue too.
  - ionised 11y ago
    I agree with this but our status as a 'social species' is a factor too. Empathy goes beyond just your family. Giving away money and thus 'helping the group' akin to older elephants protecting the entire herd might flip that feel-good switch in the brain.
dmvaldman 11y ago
What I like about the effective altruist movement is the research they provide. What I don't like is the cultish behavior, and inherent bias that what I think is good is "universally" good. Effective altruism is nothing more than a rebranding of utilitarianism, and suffers from the same moral quandaries. Should I kill someone if it is the best way to decrease child mortality rates in Africa? Should we all quit our jobs to solve friendly AI? Because if not there is a non-negligible probability of human extinction, and the math clearly says this should be our top priority. I think it's healthy to be aware of the short comings of effective altruism as well as its benefits. Morality and duty are too nuanced for a single ideology to provide all the answers. Edit: wording
- vog 11y ago
  > Should I kill someone if it is the best way to increase child mortality rates in Africa? Did you mean "decrease" here?
  - dmvaldman 11y ago
    right....sure.... (fixed :-P)
- radu_floricica 11y ago
  There was a post the other day on the Effective Altruists facebook page which read like: > Does abnormal self-sacrifice inspire social change? (A response to "A Defense of Normality" link below) > The conventional wisdom is that many movements throughout history (christianity, buddhism, Indian independence) were inspired and fueled by the extraordinary sacrifice of leaders/early adopters (or at least myths about such extreme altruism). The conventional wisdom may be wrong, but maybe we need more abnormal sacrifice in our movement, not less. In fact, I think it's plausibly a good idea for us to donate our kidneys, precisely as a symbol of our commitment-- not necessarily in the hopes that others will follow suit-- but in the hopes that it inspires people to take altruism more seriously.
- jal278 11y ago
  Many of the perceived problems with utilitarianism result from confusing "utility" with wealth, or in otherwise simplifying what optimizing human flourishing would actually look like in practice. Although reasonable people disagree on many principles of moral thought, a point of near-consensus is that if all other things are equal, we should try to reduce needless suffering as much as possible. For a great and nuanced treatment, see: "Moral Tribes" by Joshua Greene.
stared 11y ago
Is it only me, who would prefer to have the phrase "efficient altruists" rather than "effective altruists"? In the context of sciences, "effective X" usually means "something that is not X, but in the effect acts as X" (e.g. "effective potential"). So, I when I first met the phrase "effective altruism" I was thinking it is something in the line of Ayn Rand or so - that we should be egoistic, but (some) egoistic behaviours are effectively altruistic. While "how to do as much X given fixed amount of resources?" is talking about being "efficient".
- vog 11y ago
  To my understanding, "effective" also means to have an impact, while "efficient" focuses more on the ratio impact/resources. In that way, I find the wording "effective" better suited. It means the maximum impact given your resources, while for "efficient" it would be okay to have 80% of the effect if you get that for just 70% of your resources.
  - stared 11y ago
    I understand that "effective" has also this meaning. But, as I pointed out, is ambiguous, with the "default" meaning being very different (not just subtly) from the intended one. Especially as, in evolutionary biology, and game theory, there is a big topic of investigating how egoistic behaviour may give raise to an altruistic effect. (And of course, the main thing is that adjectives created from nouns are very ambiguous, i.e. effective can mean both "altruism that gives effect" or "altruism that is an effect".)
XzetaU8 11y ago
"Pathological Altruism" http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324688404578545523824389986 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873246884045785455...
amelius 11y ago
There is also a TED talk by Peter Singer: "The why and how of effective altruism" [1] [1] http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_singer_the_why_and_how_of_effective_altruism http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_singer_the_why_and_how_of_eff...
- dan00 11y ago
  Looking it, one suggestion came up, that you should go for a career where you can earn as much as possible, because then you could gave more money away, use it for something good. So finance came up and I'm not gonna to say, that finance is by definition evil, but I can see quite some bad things coming out of finance, just think about all the trading with food, which painfully increased prices especially for the poorest people in the third world. Not to speak about the effects of the financial crises and their reasons. I was just quite surprised about this kind of thinking, this kind of simplification and to think of this as the most effective kind of altruism seems to be a bit blinded.
  - Avshalom 11y ago
    >Looking it, one suggestion came up, that you should go for a career where you can earn as much as possible, because then you could gave more money away, use it for something good. That one comes up a lot and the fundamental problem is that nobody actually does it. People start careers with the intention of doing it but hedonistic treadmill/peer-pressure seems to wring it out of them sooner rather than later. Even ignoring, as you point out negative externalities, it's just bad advice to suggest that doing something that no one seems capable of carrying though with is a good way to affect positive change.
    - dan00 11y ago
      Yes, that's certainly a good point. What if someone really wants to go into finance, likes its money and prestige and now he might be even able, thanks to effective altruism, to appease his morally doubts.
  - amelius 11y ago
nefitty 11y ago
Peter Singer's work has influenced my life in a big way. I have taken the 10% income to charity pledge and am on track this year to hit it(I calculate it every week as my income may begin varying weekly). My charity of choice is Schistomiasis Initiative, which I donate to through GiveWell. The Life You Can Save has a satisfying "Impact Calculator" that can help you visualize what good your money is capable of doing http://www.thelifeyoucansave.org http://www.thelifeyoucansave.org I urge everyone here to really consider taking the pledge and begin diverting at least some of their income to effective charities. I am now also considering donating a fraction of my 10% to AI research. (Tip: Don't set up automatic donations if doing it yourself manually every month isn't too much of a hassle. The good vibes are definitely worth soaking in!)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- asgard1024 11y ago
  > I urge everyone here to really consider taking the pledge and begin diverting at least some of their income to effective charities. I wasn't aware of Peter Singer etc., but I was actually independently considering doing the same thing (also 10%). But to be honest, I still fight with my worries - I am not sure about the local culture (Czech Republic), many people here still believe "who doesn't steal, steals from the family", and I worry that some of my friends/family will not like the idea. Although it may be completely unfounded fear or rationalization (I have a fair share of social anxiety).
  - nefitty 11y ago
    I sympathize. I've actually had some negative reactions from close family as well. Thoase reactions are hurtful but I believe this choice to be the right thing to do. I now rarely speak about my charitable gifts, unless questions of ethics or beliefs arise in conversation. There's nothing wrong with keeping your giving to yourself if that makes you feel more comfortable!
- EGreg 11y ago
  The question of utilitarianism rests on the opprotunity cost of doing one thing versus another. Sure, some costs are relatively easy to estimate - vegging out on your couch for days watching TV will not likely lead to a lot of good for others (except possibly if you are actively doing research). But since even great investment firms don't always know which entrepreneurs to back, how are you supposed to know whether your current entrepreneurial efforts won't pay off more by reinvesting what you earned into building your business? Perhaps at the other end, the focus on individual contribution is arbitrary as well. This is also a focus of libertarians who are methodological individualists - who say only individuals act, not orgabizations, and eg paying taxes to have a government agency pay for schooling is always less efficient than a charity that funds private school admission for poor students. But who says? That's quite an extreme position. Who says YOU can do the most good? Perhaps if they hired someone else to make the money they'd make more and donate more correctly. Maybe you're better off getting out of the way. Who knows maybe your company when led by someone else can do even more good? Maybe you should step aside after you've built it? Perhaps giving your time and money to educate a kid or invest in someone else's work will go further because they'll earn more money? Perhaps robots can do a better job than you. With more and more technology and automation, it really does seem like there are diminishing returns from a growing class of people, and demand for their labor is falling. Perhaps the best thing people around the world can do is use condoms and prevent overpopulation in their respective areas. From a purely utilitarian calculus, is it better to have as many kids as you can if you can maximie the QUAYs? What if you could have less kids but they'd all have a higher quality of life? Isn't that better than having a society crammed with poor kids, who as the article points out are nearly as happy as the rich? Is it really additive? Or are we risking an ecosystem crash that can suddenly lead to greater misery? In short, we don't really have all the answers. I'd advise erring on the side of admitting we don't know what we could so to an ecosystem and not try to rape externalities to satisfy unchecked population growth and growing demand. Ecosystem collapse may be the thing that crashes your QUAYs down, and even if after the whole mess your sum was still higher due to sheer population numbers, I question the additivity. Finally the problems come down to this: what is the definition of SHOULD? I believe there is a hidden premise that many people omit when they say should. It is a ternary relation: A should do B if A wants C to happen Without individual goals, there is no should. As for the responsibility of the individual, here is my simple answer and the motto of our company: People live lives. Companies create products. Yes it is a bit ordinary and not as catchy sounding as "don't be evil". But it at every point make it clear who has responsibility to do what. When you are working for a project, you create a repeatable product and drive down costs through maximizing re-use. When you are off the clock, you live your life and honor your relationship, which are deeper than just "I don't know you from a hole in the wall." In the marketplace, there are less promises and moral obligations than in an intimate relationship, where shared goals are formed. Remember - poverty is already going down around the world. The biggest issue we can face today is an ecological disaster caused either by us or an outside factor. Given the history of life on Earth, we can say that the probability of an outside event exceeding what we've seen in the last 10,000 is slim. However, our own population growth in the last 200 years is staggering and unprecedented! We should worry about collapse of various ecosystems that we put pressure on. At the very least, these utilitarians should read about the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument and stop focusing on mere additivity of QUAYs. Perhaps the best thing they can do is hand out free condoms to everyone on the planet.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
vinceguidry 11y ago
I have trouble both with Effective Altruists' claims that they can actually quantify human well-being to the point to where if you spend $X, you'll get $Y benefit out of it, and without that, the entire point is lost. Even if you could, with a fair amount of certainty, say that for every $40 that the Yurt charity gets, they'll build 3 homes, there's a pretty hard limit on how many $40's they'll be able to turn into homes. Eventually they'll run out of qualified people willing to build homes for peanuts. Charity simply doesn't scale. The more you try, the more it just looks like regular old business. EA could very well be a viable philosophy at the low volumes that participate right now, but if they're successful as a movement, whatever they build is just going to turn into another Red Cross. The Red Cross couldn't scale appropriately, and I highly doubt it was due to any lack of can-do willingness.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

51 points by akbarnama 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

I've read this book together with the two books about Effective Altruism bei Peter Singer (The Life You Can Save and The Most Good You Can Do), and I have to say these books have really changed my life. I know it sounds cheesy, but I've never read books that had such a lasting influence on me. Those books provide just the right rational and scientific arguments and have shown me with how much cognitive dissonance I, as a supposed rational person, ran through my life.

a3voices 11y ago
I'd argue that being an effective altruist actually makes you less rational. As part of your genetic fitness, your brain is optimized for survival, reproduction, and keeping your children alive. If you're in the middle class and you give your money away then it goes against those objectives.
- sullyj3 11y ago
  But rationality isn't about effectiveness in achieving the things you are evolutionarily optimised for, because those things don't necessarily line up with the things you want! There's no a priori reason to value evolutionary goals over goals you pick for yourself. That would be an appeal to nature. If helping other people is really something you care about and value intrinsically, then rationality is about finding the most effective ways and means of helping other people.
- gglitch 11y ago
  By extension of that logic, the brain is not geared for reason, which I think is probably true.
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    The brain is geared for resource-bounded abductive reasoning, a job it performs with remarkable efficiency.
    - gglitch 11y ago
      Does it? I don't know. Obviously results will vary. I think the standout example of the brain's wiring no longer being optimal for modern life is of people's physiological responses to anxiety. Elevated heartrate and adrenaline release are all great when you're being chased by a predator, but extremely unhelpful when you're taking a standardized test that will determine how much tuition you pay later on, or delivering a presentation to a prospective employer.
  - a3voices 11y ago
    Well I think the fundamental issue is that it is impossible to rationally prove which values are more important than other ones. You have to almost arbitrarily decide. For example you could hypothetically design an artificial intelligence that is optimized for creating paperclips. As a person, you could decide your life goal is to drink as much glue as possible or something stupid like that. But since it goes against your survival instinct and cultural values (and everyone else's) you will just be a dysfunctional crazy person. Biologically you could define a "good" value system as one which is conducive to you having offspring. Ethics, morality, cultural values, etc. are not necessary for that although they might provide intellectual simplifications that help.
    - ionised 11y ago
      Survival instinct isn't the same as reproductive isntinct though. I have the will to survive but zero desire to have children.
- Kurtz79 11y ago
  I'd argue that survival, reproduction, and keeping your children alive have more to do with instinct and subconscious, and rationality is trying to go beyond this basic movers.
- edanm 11y ago
  The objectives of "your genes" do not have to be your objectives. So you can be rational, but have different goals from what you were "meant" to (for some value of the word "meant").
  - a3voices 11y ago
    Well perhaps that is true but then you will experience a lot more mental incongruity. For example, gay and transgendered people have much higher suicide attempt rates. The more you deviate from traditional family values, the unhappier you will likely feel. There is a big correlation I bet.
    - edanm 11y ago
      I don't think what you're saying is true re: mental incongruity. And I don't think your example of gay suicides proves it, as it's hard to know what is the cause (and many people will point out, and I would agree, that there are many other causes of gay suicides, e.g. that our culture is oppressive toward gay people).
    - ionised 11y ago
      Traditional family values as we understand them have not always been how families worked. Traditions can change. Traditions that don't serve you any purpose personally should be discarded.
  - nine_k 11y ago
    To put in in other words, whatever your (gene-induced) instincts may urge you to do may not be the best strategy to successfully reproduce. Humans are a culture-based species. Helping your culture may be reciprocated by increased chance of your progeny surviving and prospering. Also, cultures (at least microbial ones) with a certain percent of altruists grow faster than cultures without them, even though altruists' genes become less represented: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5911/272.abstract http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5911/272.abstract
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Genes are just part of the picture. Culture is as important - cultures evolve and are selected for fitness in almost the same way as genetics. This is a mammal thing, especially vivid in humans. In fact, culture has been shaping genes far more than genes, culture. In the last 50,000 years Homo Sapiens genetic adaptation has increased manyfold, likely in response to environmental changes brought on by culture (agrarian societies, towns and cities, large-scale cooperative venture etc). So the 'genes rule the organism' idea has been untrue for 1000 generations, for humans.
  - a3voices 11y ago
    This should go without saying but if you go against your culture, your chances of finding a life partner and having children are less likely. So genetically you are tailored to "fit in".
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Much of our genetic adaptation agrees with this - growing up with infantile features (like extreme social behavior, empathy, imprinting on other adults for years after birth, smaller face/jaws, far less hair) helps us live in larger groups in close proximity i.e. villages, towns and cities.
    - edanm 11y ago
      You're also genetically tailored to have lots of sex, theoretically in order to reproduce, but that doesn't prevent people from using birth control. You're genetically programmed to eat lots of fat, theoretically because it would better for you, although these days with easy abundance of foo it's much less heathy. Worth mentioning that you might be genetically predisposed to do something to achieve some end goal, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with or actually try to achieve that end goal.
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        And remember, genes benefit the line not just the individual. Even insect colonies have non-reproducing members. If some folks don't reproduce but protect and nurture other clan children, this increases the next generation's gene survival, then those genes continue too.
- ionised 11y ago
  I agree with this but our status as a 'social species' is a factor too. Empathy goes beyond just your family. Giving away money and thus 'helping the group' akin to older elephants protecting the entire herd might flip that feel-good switch in the brain.

dmvaldman 11y ago

What I like about the effective altruist movement is the research they provide. What I don't like is the cultish behavior, and inherent bias that what I think is good is "universally" good. Effective altruism is nothing more than a rebranding of utilitarianism, and suffers from the same moral quandaries. Should I kill someone if it is the best way to decrease child mortality rates in Africa? Should we all quit our jobs to solve friendly AI? Because if not there is a non-negligible probability of human extinction, and the math clearly says this should be our top priority. I think it's healthy to be aware of the short comings of effective altruism as well as its benefits. Morality and duty are too nuanced for a single ideology to provide all the answers. Edit: wording

vog 11y ago
> Should I kill someone if it is the best way to increase child mortality rates in Africa? Did you mean "decrease" here?
- dmvaldman 11y ago
  right....sure.... (fixed :-P)
radu_floricica 11y ago
There was a post the other day on the Effective Altruists facebook page which read like: > Does abnormal self-sacrifice inspire social change? (A response to "A Defense of Normality" link below) > The conventional wisdom is that many movements throughout history (christianity, buddhism, Indian independence) were inspired and fueled by the extraordinary sacrifice of leaders/early adopters (or at least myths about such extreme altruism). The conventional wisdom may be wrong, but maybe we need more abnormal sacrifice in our movement, not less. In fact, I think it's plausibly a good idea for us to donate our kidneys, precisely as a symbol of our commitment-- not necessarily in the hopes that others will follow suit-- but in the hopes that it inspires people to take altruism more seriously.
jal278 11y ago
Many of the perceived problems with utilitarianism result from confusing "utility" with wealth, or in otherwise simplifying what optimizing human flourishing would actually look like in practice. Although reasonable people disagree on many principles of moral thought, a point of near-consensus is that if all other things are equal, we should try to reduce needless suffering as much as possible. For a great and nuanced treatment, see: "Moral Tribes" by Joshua Greene.

stared 11y ago

Is it only me, who would prefer to have the phrase "efficient altruists" rather than "effective altruists"? In the context of sciences, "effective X" usually means "something that is not X, but in the effect acts as X" (e.g. "effective potential"). So, I when I first met the phrase "effective altruism" I was thinking it is something in the line of Ayn Rand or so - that we should be egoistic, but (some) egoistic behaviours are effectively altruistic. While "how to do as much X given fixed amount of resources?" is talking about being "efficient".

vog 11y ago
To my understanding, "effective" also means to have an impact, while "efficient" focuses more on the ratio impact/resources. In that way, I find the wording "effective" better suited. It means the maximum impact given your resources, while for "efficient" it would be okay to have 80% of the effect if you get that for just 70% of your resources.
- stared 11y ago
  I understand that "effective" has also this meaning. But, as I pointed out, is ambiguous, with the "default" meaning being very different (not just subtly) from the intended one. Especially as, in evolutionary biology, and game theory, there is a big topic of investigating how egoistic behaviour may give raise to an altruistic effect. (And of course, the main thing is that adjectives created from nouns are very ambiguous, i.e. effective can mean both "altruism that gives effect" or "altruism that is an effect".)

XzetaU8 11y ago

"Pathological Altruism" http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324688404578545523824389986 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873246884045785455...

amelius 11y ago

There is also a TED talk by Peter Singer: "The why and how of effective altruism" [1] [1] http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_singer_the_why_and_how_of_effective_altruism http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_singer_the_why_and_how_of_eff...

dan00 11y ago
Looking it, one suggestion came up, that you should go for a career where you can earn as much as possible, because then you could gave more money away, use it for something good. So finance came up and I'm not gonna to say, that finance is by definition evil, but I can see quite some bad things coming out of finance, just think about all the trading with food, which painfully increased prices especially for the poorest people in the third world. Not to speak about the effects of the financial crises and their reasons. I was just quite surprised about this kind of thinking, this kind of simplification and to think of this as the most effective kind of altruism seems to be a bit blinded.
- Avshalom 11y ago
  >Looking it, one suggestion came up, that you should go for a career where you can earn as much as possible, because then you could gave more money away, use it for something good. That one comes up a lot and the fundamental problem is that nobody actually does it. People start careers with the intention of doing it but hedonistic treadmill/peer-pressure seems to wring it out of them sooner rather than later. Even ignoring, as you point out negative externalities, it's just bad advice to suggest that doing something that no one seems capable of carrying though with is a good way to affect positive change.
  - dan00 11y ago
    Yes, that's certainly a good point. What if someone really wants to go into finance, likes its money and prestige and now he might be even able, thanks to effective altruism, to appease his morally doubts.
- amelius 11y ago

nefitty 11y ago

Peter Singer's work has influenced my life in a big way. I have taken the 10% income to charity pledge and am on track this year to hit it(I calculate it every week as my income may begin varying weekly). My charity of choice is Schistomiasis Initiative, which I donate to through GiveWell. The Life You Can Save has a satisfying "Impact Calculator" that can help you visualize what good your money is capable of doing http://www.thelifeyoucansave.org http://www.thelifeyoucansave.org I urge everyone here to really consider taking the pledge and begin diverting at least some of their income to effective charities. I am now also considering donating a fraction of my 10% to AI research. (Tip: Don't set up automatic donations if doing it yourself manually every month isn't too much of a hassle. The good vibes are definitely worth soaking in!)

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
asgard1024 11y ago
> I urge everyone here to really consider taking the pledge and begin diverting at least some of their income to effective charities. I wasn't aware of Peter Singer etc., but I was actually independently considering doing the same thing (also 10%). But to be honest, I still fight with my worries - I am not sure about the local culture (Czech Republic), many people here still believe "who doesn't steal, steals from the family", and I worry that some of my friends/family will not like the idea. Although it may be completely unfounded fear or rationalization (I have a fair share of social anxiety).
- nefitty 11y ago
  I sympathize. I've actually had some negative reactions from close family as well. Thoase reactions are hurtful but I believe this choice to be the right thing to do. I now rarely speak about my charitable gifts, unless questions of ethics or beliefs arise in conversation. There's nothing wrong with keeping your giving to yourself if that makes you feel more comfortable!
EGreg 11y ago
The question of utilitarianism rests on the opprotunity cost of doing one thing versus another. Sure, some costs are relatively easy to estimate - vegging out on your couch for days watching TV will not likely lead to a lot of good for others (except possibly if you are actively doing research). But since even great investment firms don't always know which entrepreneurs to back, how are you supposed to know whether your current entrepreneurial efforts won't pay off more by reinvesting what you earned into building your business? Perhaps at the other end, the focus on individual contribution is arbitrary as well. This is also a focus of libertarians who are methodological individualists - who say only individuals act, not orgabizations, and eg paying taxes to have a government agency pay for schooling is always less efficient than a charity that funds private school admission for poor students. But who says? That's quite an extreme position. Who says YOU can do the most good? Perhaps if they hired someone else to make the money they'd make more and donate more correctly. Maybe you're better off getting out of the way. Who knows maybe your company when led by someone else can do even more good? Maybe you should step aside after you've built it? Perhaps giving your time and money to educate a kid or invest in someone else's work will go further because they'll earn more money? Perhaps robots can do a better job than you. With more and more technology and automation, it really does seem like there are diminishing returns from a growing class of people, and demand for their labor is falling. Perhaps the best thing people around the world can do is use condoms and prevent overpopulation in their respective areas. From a purely utilitarian calculus, is it better to have as many kids as you can if you can maximie the QUAYs? What if you could have less kids but they'd all have a higher quality of life? Isn't that better than having a society crammed with poor kids, who as the article points out are nearly as happy as the rich? Is it really additive? Or are we risking an ecosystem crash that can suddenly lead to greater misery? In short, we don't really have all the answers. I'd advise erring on the side of admitting we don't know what we could so to an ecosystem and not try to rape externalities to satisfy unchecked population growth and growing demand. Ecosystem collapse may be the thing that crashes your QUAYs down, and even if after the whole mess your sum was still higher due to sheer population numbers, I question the additivity. Finally the problems come down to this: what is the definition of SHOULD? I believe there is a hidden premise that many people omit when they say should. It is a ternary relation: A should do B if A wants C to happen Without individual goals, there is no should. As for the responsibility of the individual, here is my simple answer and the motto of our company: People live lives. Companies create products. Yes it is a bit ordinary and not as catchy sounding as "don't be evil". But it at every point make it clear who has responsibility to do what. When you are working for a project, you create a repeatable product and drive down costs through maximizing re-use. When you are off the clock, you live your life and honor your relationship, which are deeper than just "I don't know you from a hole in the wall." In the marketplace, there are less promises and moral obligations than in an intimate relationship, where shared goals are formed. Remember - poverty is already going down around the world. The biggest issue we can face today is an ecological disaster caused either by us or an outside factor. Given the history of life on Earth, we can say that the probability of an outside event exceeding what we've seen in the last 10,000 is slim. However, our own population growth in the last 200 years is staggering and unprecedented! We should worry about collapse of various ecosystems that we put pressure on. At the very least, these utilitarians should read about the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument and stop focusing on mere additivity of QUAYs. Perhaps the best thing they can do is hand out free condoms to everyone on the planet.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

vinceguidry 11y ago

I have trouble both with Effective Altruists' claims that they can actually quantify human well-being to the point to where if you spend $X, you'll get $Y benefit out of it, and without that, the entire point is lost. Even if you could, with a fair amount of certainty, say that for every $40 that the Yurt charity gets, they'll build 3 homes, there's a pretty hard limit on how many $40's they'll be able to turn into homes. Eventually they'll run out of qualified people willing to build homes for peanuts. Charity simply doesn't scale. The more you try, the more it just looks like regular old business. EA could very well be a viable philosophy at the low volumes that participate right now, but if they're successful as a movement, whatever they build is just going to turn into another Red Cross. The Red Cross couldn't scale appropriately, and I highly doubt it was due to any lack of can-do willingness.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]