5 ms·

It's interesting to consider the parallels between the power/responsibilities carried by Kaminsky, and our own lives. It is estimated that we can save a human l

by noego 8y ago

It's interesting to consider the parallels between the power/responsibilities carried by Kaminsky, and our own lives. It is estimated that we can save a human life for $2000. Which means that each of us faces a similar dilemma even if we don't realize it: "If I go on an international vacation, 1 person will die" This is not to say that we should live a spartan life and donate every dollar to charity. I wouldn't expect Kaminsky to forego sleep entirely either. But it's a tradeoff that is worth being conscious of, the next time we spend money on things we don't truly want or need. https://www.givewell.org/giving101/Your-dollar-goes-further-overseas https://www.givewell.org/giving101/Your-dollar-goes-further-...

scarejunba 8y ago
It is undoubtedly clear to me that a human life is less valuable to me than my having a MacBook Pro because I am both fully aware of how much it costs to save people and consciously choose not to do so. So life isn't really precious. It is only precious in terms of its relationship to me. My family is precious and my friends are precious. Life? Life is cheap. Things I value more than life for life's own sake: * The aforementioned MacBook Pro * A trip to Switzerland * Two months of my personal trainer's sessions * My bicycle * One month of rent in SF * Having my car for a couple of months * A celebratory lunch for my team The real disconnect isn't that we're imperfectly choosing our spending. It's that we tell the lie that life is precious. It is not. I will buy my parents a computer and a tablet soon. I will do this for them knowing it brings them some small pleasure. I will do this knowing that doing so will doom a child.
- montenegrohugo 8y ago
  It sound horrible, morbid and even psychopathic, but it is the truth. Most people do not think about life in such practical ways (read: realistic), instead it is idealized and made an abstract concept. It is not. You consciously choose, every day, egoistic actions that harm other people. You could have saved countless lifes, yet you did not. Do not pretend to care when you do not. Same thing goes with eating meat. Animals aren't things. They feel, they suffer. And we make them suffer. Just because they taste good. But harming a dog? Abandoning a dog to get a new puppy? That is horrible! But is it, really? Or is it just the same thing we do every day?
  - tomhoward 8y ago
    It's not the truth. Most people understand that it's counter-productive to impoverish one's self in the process of trying to help others. It's for both sentimental and practical reasons that we give the greatest help to those closest to us - our spouse/partner, children, parents, siblings, close friends; if everyone were able to do that, then the world would function just fine. And we know that if we spend our entire wealth and productive capacity trying to help people unknown to us, we'll soon be unable to help anyone at all and will quickly end up in need of welfare rather than being able offer it. Effectively every employed person pays tax, and is comfortable knowing their taxes help others unknown to them. Many people give to charity because they like knowing that some of their wealth helps others outside their immediate circle. The assertion "you could have saved countless lives, yet you did not" is false and misanthropic. I'm no objectivist or right-libertarian, and I'm fully supportive of benevolence, humanitarianism and welfare. But in order for these systems to function optimally, we must begin by ensuring the needs of ourselves and those close to us are taken care of, so we can be net-contributors to welfare rather than net-recipients. Because as soon as too many people become net-recipients, welfare systems collapse.
- noego 8y ago
  > "So life isn't really precious. It is only precious in terms of its relationship to me" I'm curious as to which moral framework or philosophy you subscribe to? Or more concretely, how do you go about deciding when it is permissible to engage in self-serving actions at the expense of others?
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    > Or more concretely, how do you go about deciding when it is permissible to engage in self-serving actions at the expense of others? Roughly, parochial altruism, though not in the traditional sex/race/language-based sense. As you can imagine, almost everyone's point of view here is not summarizable into text short enough to be of value for you to read, so that's the un-nuanced way of putting it. The truth, though, is that what I said previously was more descriptive than aspirational. That's just who I am, observed solely through the lens of my actions. It's not very different from anyone else. Really, I only say "I" in that entire text because if I said "We" people would be offended, even though what I said is really banally normal.
- ddrdrck_ 8y ago
  This is so egocentric. Do you really believe your choices can have such an impact ? Actually it has not, and you can sleep well knowing than buying a computer to your parents won't harm anyone, because your choices alone cannot change the world. If you're not giving money to charities, then someone else will do. If no one gives money, then there will still be some people trying to save childs anyway, using their skills and their guts, not their money. Now imagine this theoretical situation : you have the choice between buying a new computer or save an unknown child for certain death (let's imagine a psychopath taking a child in hostage and asking you randomly). Would you still buy the computer ? Would you still consider that human life is less valuable for you than having a new computer ? I certainly hope not
  - Kaiyou 8y ago
    Actually, my answer wouldn't change. I'd take the computer over saving some child I don't even know.
    - ddrdrck_ 8y ago
      Then I wish you all the worst
  - tomhoward 8y ago
    Posing hypotheticals like this and passing judgment on their character for their answer is not a good-faith way of discussing a topic. It's just not a realistic scenario and someone's answer to the hypothetical indicates nothing about how they would actually act in a real situation where they were able to help someone.
    - ddrdrck_ 8y ago
      You did not understand my point. My point was that you cannot pretend to not value life just because you prefer to buy a new computer rather than giving 2000$ to a charity. There is no direct connection, if it would be that easy then Bill Gates would be the savior of humanity.
- ilovetux 8y ago
  I hope other people feel differently if you are ever in need of help.
- tomjen3 8y ago
  I find it sad that other commenters are attacking you because they don't understand that you just stated your reveled preferences, and those are shared by mostly every other person.
CMCDragonkai 8y ago
Is there evidence backing givewell's advice?
- noego 8y ago
  You're referring to their "$2000-to-save-a-life" claim? It isn't "advice", it's a statement. There's a spreadsheet linked to from the above page, which shows the calculations they used to derive that statement.

by noego 8y ago

scarejunba 8y ago

It is undoubtedly clear to me that a human life is less valuable to me than my having a MacBook Pro because I am both fully aware of how much it costs to save people and consciously choose not to do so. So life isn't really precious. It is only precious in terms of its relationship to me. My family is precious and my friends are precious. Life? Life is cheap. Things I value more than life for life's own sake: * The aforementioned MacBook Pro * A trip to Switzerland * Two months of my personal trainer's sessions * My bicycle * One month of rent in SF * Having my car for a couple of months * A celebratory lunch for my team The real disconnect isn't that we're imperfectly choosing our spending. It's that we tell the lie that life is precious. It is not. I will buy my parents a computer and a tablet soon. I will do this for them knowing it brings them some small pleasure. I will do this knowing that doing so will doom a child.

montenegrohugo 8y ago
It sound horrible, morbid and even psychopathic, but it is the truth. Most people do not think about life in such practical ways (read: realistic), instead it is idealized and made an abstract concept. It is not. You consciously choose, every day, egoistic actions that harm other people. You could have saved countless lifes, yet you did not. Do not pretend to care when you do not. Same thing goes with eating meat. Animals aren't things. They feel, they suffer. And we make them suffer. Just because they taste good. But harming a dog? Abandoning a dog to get a new puppy? That is horrible! But is it, really? Or is it just the same thing we do every day?
- tomhoward 8y ago
  It's not the truth. Most people understand that it's counter-productive to impoverish one's self in the process of trying to help others. It's for both sentimental and practical reasons that we give the greatest help to those closest to us - our spouse/partner, children, parents, siblings, close friends; if everyone were able to do that, then the world would function just fine. And we know that if we spend our entire wealth and productive capacity trying to help people unknown to us, we'll soon be unable to help anyone at all and will quickly end up in need of welfare rather than being able offer it. Effectively every employed person pays tax, and is comfortable knowing their taxes help others unknown to them. Many people give to charity because they like knowing that some of their wealth helps others outside their immediate circle. The assertion "you could have saved countless lives, yet you did not" is false and misanthropic. I'm no objectivist or right-libertarian, and I'm fully supportive of benevolence, humanitarianism and welfare. But in order for these systems to function optimally, we must begin by ensuring the needs of ourselves and those close to us are taken care of, so we can be net-contributors to welfare rather than net-recipients. Because as soon as too many people become net-recipients, welfare systems collapse.
noego 8y ago
> "So life isn't really precious. It is only precious in terms of its relationship to me" I'm curious as to which moral framework or philosophy you subscribe to? Or more concretely, how do you go about deciding when it is permissible to engage in self-serving actions at the expense of others?
- scarejunba 8y ago
  > Or more concretely, how do you go about deciding when it is permissible to engage in self-serving actions at the expense of others? Roughly, parochial altruism, though not in the traditional sex/race/language-based sense. As you can imagine, almost everyone's point of view here is not summarizable into text short enough to be of value for you to read, so that's the un-nuanced way of putting it. The truth, though, is that what I said previously was more descriptive than aspirational. That's just who I am, observed solely through the lens of my actions. It's not very different from anyone else. Really, I only say "I" in that entire text because if I said "We" people would be offended, even though what I said is really banally normal.
ddrdrck_ 8y ago
This is so egocentric. Do you really believe your choices can have such an impact ? Actually it has not, and you can sleep well knowing than buying a computer to your parents won't harm anyone, because your choices alone cannot change the world. If you're not giving money to charities, then someone else will do. If no one gives money, then there will still be some people trying to save childs anyway, using their skills and their guts, not their money. Now imagine this theoretical situation : you have the choice between buying a new computer or save an unknown child for certain death (let's imagine a psychopath taking a child in hostage and asking you randomly). Would you still buy the computer ? Would you still consider that human life is less valuable for you than having a new computer ? I certainly hope not
- Kaiyou 8y ago
  Actually, my answer wouldn't change. I'd take the computer over saving some child I don't even know.
  - ddrdrck_ 8y ago
    Then I wish you all the worst
- tomhoward 8y ago
  Posing hypotheticals like this and passing judgment on their character for their answer is not a good-faith way of discussing a topic. It's just not a realistic scenario and someone's answer to the hypothetical indicates nothing about how they would actually act in a real situation where they were able to help someone.
  - ddrdrck_ 8y ago
    You did not understand my point. My point was that you cannot pretend to not value life just because you prefer to buy a new computer rather than giving 2000$ to a charity. There is no direct connection, if it would be that easy then Bill Gates would be the savior of humanity.
ilovetux 8y ago
I hope other people feel differently if you are ever in need of help.
tomjen3 8y ago
I find it sad that other commenters are attacking you because they don't understand that you just stated your reveled preferences, and those are shared by mostly every other person.

CMCDragonkai 8y ago

Is there evidence backing givewell's advice?

noego 8y ago
You're referring to their "$2000-to-save-a-life" claim? It isn't "advice", it's a statement. There's a spreadsheet linked to from the above page, which shows the calculations they used to derive that statement.