4 ms·

I heard about EA from a person I respect, and so that really colored my perception of it because I think he, specifically, wouldn't do such a bad job. But havin

by gatlin 6y ago

I heard about EA from a person I respect, and so that really colored my perception of it because I think he, specifically, wouldn't do such a bad job. But having some time to think about it, that's really the problem with it: we have a need for altruism to begin with largely due to the concentration of resources (=> power) in the hands of a few to wield for everyone else. It's a cute example and certainly no substitute for a more comprehensive argument, but: we have enough food for everyone on Earth - it is purely a property rights issue that we can't connect more hungry mouths with more uneaten food. There's no R&D to be done, there's no unsolved problem with a bounty on it: the commodification of food has guaranteed a huge amount of waste we can do nothing about because the market over-produces for big brained logistics reasons; and a bizarre web of property and tort law means it's even illegal to go diving into a dumpster for some of this wasted food, even if you're starving, because that's trespassing. And we wouldn't want a _lawless society_, would we? /s The problem is is ultimately the concentration of power (in whatever form it takes, money or otherwise) in the hands of a few. EA claims that doing more of the thing that causes these huge problems like hunger and homelessness will actually somehow cause less of it. And if you think I'm being reductive, fine, but I would ask that you point out what I'm reducing and why it shouldn't have been.

hotstickyballs 6y ago
> it is purely a property rights issue that we can't connect more hungry mouths with more uneaten food. There's no R&D to be done, there's no unsolved problem with a bounty on it Yes, it's a property rights issue.. and more. The problem is motivating those who are holding on to the food to distribute it to those who need it. Clearly if those who need it are providing valuable service to food producers and distributors, there wouldn't be a problem. The issue is really, how do we motivate the distribution of food (and other goods and services) to those who need it but can't justify to the producers and distributors and provide for it? One solution is definitely charity. You pay the producers and distributors to distribute it to the needy. However, this quickly becomes a system that is easy to game. Often it's easier to convince the donor that work has been done instead of actually doing the work. Another solution is government welfare, but it really comes down to the same problem - the objective becomes just convincing those asking for it. The central issue is that those who need it but can't justify it are essentially powerless to motivate others to provide for them. IMHO the only reasonable way is to help these people become net producers in the economy or have more political power.
- tsm_sf 6y ago
  > The issue is really, how do we motivate the distribution of food (and other goods and services) to those who need it but can't justify to the producers and distributors and provide for it? People shouldn't have to justify their existence based on some other group's favorite economic model. That seems weird and needlessly cruel.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    This is something that becomes truer when you start really thinking about it. Private property the way we have it right now is just a social construct, for it not to be simply theft it has to be socially efficient. That is to say, if people are given stewardship over land that really isn't inherently anyone's, it's a reasonable expectation that they don't use it to make food for it to be thrown out.
  - AlgorithmicTime 5y ago
    People need to justify their existence to the universe - that is, every morsel of food is the product of struggle against the physical laws of the universe. There is no free lunch.
lmm 6y ago
> EA claims that doing more of the thing that causes these huge problems like hunger and homelessness will actually somehow cause less of it. And if you think I'm being reductive, fine, but I would ask that you point out what I'm reducing and why it shouldn't have been. How is it "the thing", unless "the thing" is supposed to be, what, people using common sense? And how is it "the thing that causes these problems" when those problems are the natural state of being? People don't have food by default, people don't have housing by default, the huge amount of food being produced these days is in no way the state of nature. The argument of EA is closer to: doing more of the things that currently feed 95% of the world is the way to feed 100%.
- morsch 6y ago
  The argument of EA is closer to: doing more of the things that currently feed 95% of the world is the way to feed 100%. How do you know it's not doing more of the things that currently leave 5% without food?
  - lmm 6y ago
    By actually looking at how food gets produced.
    - morsch 6y ago
      So this is not a general property of EA, but only true for this field, as verified by a domain expert?
      - lmm 6y ago
        The same logic applies generally; the point is to apply the same things that have worked in every other field of human endeavour.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    >The argument of EA is closer to: doing more of the things that currently feed 95% of the world is the way to feed 100%. That is purely a political choice. Just grow the food supply faster than the population. Most developed countries have solved this on the population side. If every EU country had 0.5 - 1 billion people all of them would run into food problems.
fighterpilot 6y ago
Boiling everything down to power is too reductive. People are poor because they're incapable of the value provision required to not be poor. This can come down to a number of causes: low intelligence (perhaps due to malnutrition as a child), discrimination, mental health issues, disabilities, geography, attitude, education, etc. But it's scarcely a question of power. Centrally it's about capability to provide value to others who can reciprocate with money. This is the premise of the EA proposal that you're missing. If I get a job as a software engineer, this in itself has value to society even if I don't wish to donate any of the money, since I'm being compensated for value provision to someone else (who is in turn being compensated for value provision). The EA on top is just a nice bonus. Now, negative externalities are of course a real thing, and they need to be taxed so that payment for services is more correlated with true value provision to all stakeholders.
pyrrhotech 5y ago
Obesity is a far bigger problem in the world today than hunger, even in developing nations. 11% of the world suffers from hunger still, down from 40% 3 decades ago. The kind of starving absolute poverty is rapidly disappearing. In first world countries, the unequal distribution of wealth mostly means who gets to live in larger houses, travel more, go to restaurants more, send kids to better schools, etc, rather than who gets all of their needs.

by gatlin 6y ago

hotstickyballs 6y ago

> it is purely a property rights issue that we can't connect more hungry mouths with more uneaten food. There's no R&D to be done, there's no unsolved problem with a bounty on it Yes, it's a property rights issue.. and more. The problem is motivating those who are holding on to the food to distribute it to those who need it. Clearly if those who need it are providing valuable service to food producers and distributors, there wouldn't be a problem. The issue is really, how do we motivate the distribution of food (and other goods and services) to those who need it but can't justify to the producers and distributors and provide for it? One solution is definitely charity. You pay the producers and distributors to distribute it to the needy. However, this quickly becomes a system that is easy to game. Often it's easier to convince the donor that work has been done instead of actually doing the work. Another solution is government welfare, but it really comes down to the same problem - the objective becomes just convincing those asking for it. The central issue is that those who need it but can't justify it are essentially powerless to motivate others to provide for them. IMHO the only reasonable way is to help these people become net producers in the economy or have more political power.

tsm_sf 6y ago
> The issue is really, how do we motivate the distribution of food (and other goods and services) to those who need it but can't justify to the producers and distributors and provide for it? People shouldn't have to justify their existence based on some other group's favorite economic model. That seems weird and needlessly cruel.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  This is something that becomes truer when you start really thinking about it. Private property the way we have it right now is just a social construct, for it not to be simply theft it has to be socially efficient. That is to say, if people are given stewardship over land that really isn't inherently anyone's, it's a reasonable expectation that they don't use it to make food for it to be thrown out.
- AlgorithmicTime 5y ago
  People need to justify their existence to the universe - that is, every morsel of food is the product of struggle against the physical laws of the universe. There is no free lunch.

lmm 6y ago

> EA claims that doing more of the thing that causes these huge problems like hunger and homelessness will actually somehow cause less of it. And if you think I'm being reductive, fine, but I would ask that you point out what I'm reducing and why it shouldn't have been. How is it "the thing", unless "the thing" is supposed to be, what, people using common sense? And how is it "the thing that causes these problems" when those problems are the natural state of being? People don't have food by default, people don't have housing by default, the huge amount of food being produced these days is in no way the state of nature. The argument of EA is closer to: doing more of the things that currently feed 95% of the world is the way to feed 100%.

morsch 6y ago
The argument of EA is closer to: doing more of the things that currently feed 95% of the world is the way to feed 100%. How do you know it's not doing more of the things that currently leave 5% without food?
- lmm 6y ago
  By actually looking at how food gets produced.
  - morsch 6y ago
    So this is not a general property of EA, but only true for this field, as verified by a domain expert?
    - lmm 6y ago
      The same logic applies generally; the point is to apply the same things that have worked in every other field of human endeavour.
- imtringued 6y ago
  >The argument of EA is closer to: doing more of the things that currently feed 95% of the world is the way to feed 100%. That is purely a political choice. Just grow the food supply faster than the population. Most developed countries have solved this on the population side. If every EU country had 0.5 - 1 billion people all of them would run into food problems.

fighterpilot 6y ago

Boiling everything down to power is too reductive. People are poor because they're incapable of the value provision required to not be poor. This can come down to a number of causes: low intelligence (perhaps due to malnutrition as a child), discrimination, mental health issues, disabilities, geography, attitude, education, etc. But it's scarcely a question of power. Centrally it's about capability to provide value to others who can reciprocate with money. This is the premise of the EA proposal that you're missing. If I get a job as a software engineer, this in itself has value to society even if I don't wish to donate any of the money, since I'm being compensated for value provision to someone else (who is in turn being compensated for value provision). The EA on top is just a nice bonus. Now, negative externalities are of course a real thing, and they need to be taxed so that payment for services is more correlated with true value provision to all stakeholders.

pyrrhotech 5y ago

Obesity is a far bigger problem in the world today than hunger, even in developing nations. 11% of the world suffers from hunger still, down from 40% 3 decades ago. The kind of starving absolute poverty is rapidly disappearing. In first world countries, the unequal distribution of wealth mostly means who gets to live in larger houses, travel more, go to restaurants more, send kids to better schools, etc, rather than who gets all of their needs.