5 ms·

Let's all stop finger-pointing and do more what Effective Altruism encourages: using resources more effectively: - donate money where it does more good per dol

by yboris 7y ago

Let's all stop finger-pointing and do more what Effective Altruism encourages: using resources more effectively: - donate money where it does more good per dollar spent - if you're able to - spend working time on important issues - if you're able to Just because some millionaires aren't doing anything to make the world a better place, doesn't mean those with fewer means can't. We in the tech field with our salaries especially.

ben_w 7y ago
Is charity even the right solution? From what I’ve heard, pensions are a thing because c. 1900 millionaires didn’t — and possibly couldn’t — give enough to charity. That line of reasoning leads to the need for political change, and not necessarily revolution.
- yboris 7y ago
  Effective Altruists are working on a variety of approaches. Pandemic prevention has been on their radar for as long as the movement has been around. Structural change is very important and it's best approached in places where there is high tractability and high neglectedness. As for donations -- that's the low-hanging fruit. Any individual, without having to change anything about their life (other than spending a bit less on themselves) can give to cost effective charities to do a tremendous amount of good.
  - xnyan 7y ago
    There isn’t a charity in existence that could’ve provided even close to the amount of support needed to support major parts of the world (2.7bln in quarantine) population to date, to say nothing of what they will need in the future. Governments are the only proven way of handling truly large scale issues like defense and national health. Americans in particular depend on charities for services because domestic spending has been recklessly and cruelly slashed for at least the last 40 years. Depending on unaccountable and nebulous organizations and random billionaires for critical services is the opposite of personal freedom.
    - yboris 7y ago
      Are you recommending people stop giving money to charity?
      - a1369209993 7y ago
        If they're not, I will. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22961062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22961062 but tldr: if altruistic people donate to (welfare-oriented) charity rather than lobbying for tax-supported welfare, they effectively subside non-altruistic people by exempting them from paying their share of welfare support.
        yboris 7y ago
        What about a charity like Give Directly? It provides one-time large cash non-restricted grants to individuals in some of the world's poorest communities. It's hard for the people just barely getting by to also fight for better governance. Giving a small 'leg up' can help communities get better faster.
        a1369209993 7y ago
        > It's hard for the people just barely getting by to also fight for better governance. Yes, obviously. I'm claiming that the people donating to (among others) Give Directly would be more effective at achieving their stated goals via political corruption than personal charity. To be clear, I'm violently opposed to the sort of blind act-utilitarianesque consequentialism that would claim it's morally wrong to do anything other than the most utility-maximizing action (and people who donate to Give Directly et al probably are helping, just less effectively than they could be), but as far as recommendations go, see above.
        yboris 7y ago
        I see that you're in favor of people working to end political corruption. You're claiming that it would be more effective at making the world a better place. But it also seems like you're claiming that people should not donate to charities, because that is actively bad. But then, what about donating to charities that work on ending the political corruption? Given that it's very hard for an individual to change their career mid-life to focus on fixing corruption; or to even use their free time to do that; what is the problem with sharing a message that encourages people to do research (focusing on cost-effectiveness of charities) before giving money to charity?
thomaslord 7y ago
Charity isn't an efficient use of funds. If we want our resources used more effectively, that money needs to go to the government and we need to elect leaders who use it for the things we actually need.
- yboris 7y ago
  Are you aware of GiveWell? https://www.givewell.org/ https://www.givewell.org/ They evaluate charities; their top-recommended charity Against Malaria Foundation can, for $5, provide an insecticide-treated mosquito net that can protect individuals from malaria for 3-4 years. It's been proven to effectively decrease incidence of malaria in regions where such nets were distributed. This is very cost-effective. Charity can be very efficient in helping people. You just have to find cost-effective charities and give your money there.

by yboris 7y ago

ben_w 7y ago

Is charity even the right solution? From what I’ve heard, pensions are a thing because c. 1900 millionaires didn’t — and possibly couldn’t — give enough to charity. That line of reasoning leads to the need for political change, and not necessarily revolution.

yboris 7y ago
Effective Altruists are working on a variety of approaches. Pandemic prevention has been on their radar for as long as the movement has been around. Structural change is very important and it's best approached in places where there is high tractability and high neglectedness. As for donations -- that's the low-hanging fruit. Any individual, without having to change anything about their life (other than spending a bit less on themselves) can give to cost effective charities to do a tremendous amount of good.
- xnyan 7y ago
  There isn’t a charity in existence that could’ve provided even close to the amount of support needed to support major parts of the world (2.7bln in quarantine) population to date, to say nothing of what they will need in the future. Governments are the only proven way of handling truly large scale issues like defense and national health. Americans in particular depend on charities for services because domestic spending has been recklessly and cruelly slashed for at least the last 40 years. Depending on unaccountable and nebulous organizations and random billionaires for critical services is the opposite of personal freedom.
  - yboris 7y ago
    Are you recommending people stop giving money to charity?
    - a1369209993 7y ago
      If they're not, I will. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22961062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22961062 but tldr: if altruistic people donate to (welfare-oriented) charity rather than lobbying for tax-supported welfare, they effectively subside non-altruistic people by exempting them from paying their share of welfare support.
      - yboris 7y ago
        What about a charity like Give Directly? It provides one-time large cash non-restricted grants to individuals in some of the world's poorest communities. It's hard for the people just barely getting by to also fight for better governance. Giving a small 'leg up' can help communities get better faster.
        a1369209993 7y ago
        > It's hard for the people just barely getting by to also fight for better governance. Yes, obviously. I'm claiming that the people donating to (among others) Give Directly would be more effective at achieving their stated goals via political corruption than personal charity. To be clear, I'm violently opposed to the sort of blind act-utilitarianesque consequentialism that would claim it's morally wrong to do anything other than the most utility-maximizing action (and people who donate to Give Directly et al probably are helping, just less effectively than they could be), but as far as recommendations go, see above.
        yboris 7y ago
        I see that you're in favor of people working to end political corruption. You're claiming that it would be more effective at making the world a better place. But it also seems like you're claiming that people should not donate to charities, because that is actively bad. But then, what about donating to charities that work on ending the political corruption? Given that it's very hard for an individual to change their career mid-life to focus on fixing corruption; or to even use their free time to do that; what is the problem with sharing a message that encourages people to do research (focusing on cost-effectiveness of charities) before giving money to charity?

thomaslord 7y ago

Charity isn't an efficient use of funds. If we want our resources used more effectively, that money needs to go to the government and we need to elect leaders who use it for the things we actually need.

yboris 7y ago
Are you aware of GiveWell? https://www.givewell.org/ https://www.givewell.org/ They evaluate charities; their top-recommended charity Against Malaria Foundation can, for $5, provide an insecticide-treated mosquito net that can protect individuals from malaria for 3-4 years. It's been proven to effectively decrease incidence of malaria in regions where such nets were distributed. This is very cost-effective. Charity can be very efficient in helping people. You just have to find cost-effective charities and give your money there.