3 ms·
If everyone felt as Eliezer did- that it was better to spend at least some effort doing what the world needed most, rather than what happened to feel good- then
by ryanwaggoner 17y ago
If everyone felt as Eliezer did- that it was better to spend at least some effort doing what the world needed most, rather than what happened to feel good- then maybe we would not have hundreds of millions of people in constant danger of starvation.
I sincerely doubt it. What has charity really done for starvation and poverty? There's only one thing that has ultimately had a big, lasting effect on those things: capitalism. I'm sure many will disagree, but I'd like to see the evidence that giving $1m to developing economies has more effect than investing $1m in businesses in those economies that can then grow and hire more workers.
I don't presently see the case for charity, but I'd like to see more data on the subject.
- obfuscate 17y agoThen substitute "invested" for "donated". Or, hell, "invested in figuring out how best to help developing countries" (like http://www.givewell.net/ http://www.givewell.net/). The stereotypical ways to help people do tend to suck (lending the original quote much of its plausibility), but there are other options.
- ryanwaggoner 17y agoBut that's my point: they're not the same thing. The primary motivation for an investment is what I get out of it. If it helps other people, that's great, but I'm after a great return. And the reality is that this self-motivated economic system has done more to help the less fortunate that any direct action designed to help them.