3 ms·

I have a stronger responsibility to my friends, family and community than to people I have much weaker links to. I also have pragmatic concerns about neglecting

I have a stronger responsibility to my friends, family and community than to people I have much weaker links to. I also have pragmatic concerns about neglecting improving conditions in first world countries in terms of long term solutions to poverty and global health. EA has one very specific literal understanding of “effective” that makes a lot of controversial assumptions that they often don’t do a great job of justifying.

yboris 4y ago
Is the "controversial assumption" you are referring to that EAs tend to care about all individuals regardless of distance (in space or time) to themselves? If your "obligation" is to help those in your country before you help those in other countries, should you also then start in your state, or your city, or your block, or your house, before you turn to help others outside the narrow focus you choose? This all seems very parochial in a world that is very interconnected. Consider, should the millionaires living in a rich neighborhood support their local school first, before their philanthropic concern extends to the further-away poorer areas? The comparison EA people try to get others to focus on is that in the world of philanthropy, counterintuitively, you literally can have 1,000 times more positive impact with the same amount of money. It's like doing the same amount of good $1,000 can with just $1 donation - when given to cost-effective charities. And based on research, I hope it doesn't surprise you that, you can get these kinds of multiplier effects only when you focus on helping those that can be most-effectively helped, who predominantly are not in the US.
- Traster 4y ago
  The controversial assumption I'm referring to is that all charitable giving prior to EA was wrong-headed and that the way in which everyone else prioritizes their giving is wrong in prioritizing by both need and connection. EA isn't just saying that you need to prioritize based on measurable outcomes, but that you should take no consideration of your own position in society when choosing to give. Don't pay back to the community that fostered your success, others are more in need. And I say this is controversial because it goes directly against almost all previous examples of altruism.
  - yboris 4y ago
    I think you have a very uncharitable interpretation of what the EA community is doing. Or perhaps you met some very narrow-headed EA people. When I joined I was in my college years over a decade ago and was not as good at communicating, and was not as familiar with life outside of college, I certainly may have given bad impressions to some people I spoke with in the past. I think a mature individual that is part of EA would say something like: Of course we don't expect everyone to instantly stop everything they are doing to pursue EA goals; we are just pointing out that if your goals are to make a great impact in this world, you have to have some hard reflections on your actions, since there are some amazing ways to help individuals that look different than what you initially may have had in mind. We can't expect you to join Giving What We Can right away and start giving 10% of your income, but perhaps we can encourage you to consider whether you can make giving a larger part of your life, and that in time, you might consider giving to more cost-effective charities / organizations than you have in the past. And none of this is to imply that what you had been doing is bad, or that continuing to give to a local community is wrong. We are just here, with open arms, happy to have a conversation about helping as many individuals as possible, whatever your (psychological, financial, etc) constraints are. ps - I honestly would be happy to chat :)

yboris 4y ago

Is the "controversial assumption" you are referring to that EAs tend to care about all individuals regardless of distance (in space or time) to themselves? If your "obligation" is to help those in your country before you help those in other countries, should you also then start in your state, or your city, or your block, or your house, before you turn to help others outside the narrow focus you choose? This all seems very parochial in a world that is very interconnected. Consider, should the millionaires living in a rich neighborhood support their local school first, before their philanthropic concern extends to the further-away poorer areas? The comparison EA people try to get others to focus on is that in the world of philanthropy, counterintuitively, you literally can have 1,000 times more positive impact with the same amount of money. It's like doing the same amount of good $1,000 can with just $1 donation - when given to cost-effective charities. And based on research, I hope it doesn't surprise you that, you can get these kinds of multiplier effects only when you focus on helping those that can be most-effectively helped, who predominantly are not in the US.

Traster 4y ago
The controversial assumption I'm referring to is that all charitable giving prior to EA was wrong-headed and that the way in which everyone else prioritizes their giving is wrong in prioritizing by both need and connection. EA isn't just saying that you need to prioritize based on measurable outcomes, but that you should take no consideration of your own position in society when choosing to give. Don't pay back to the community that fostered your success, others are more in need. And I say this is controversial because it goes directly against almost all previous examples of altruism.
- yboris 4y ago
  I think you have a very uncharitable interpretation of what the EA community is doing. Or perhaps you met some very narrow-headed EA people. When I joined I was in my college years over a decade ago and was not as good at communicating, and was not as familiar with life outside of college, I certainly may have given bad impressions to some people I spoke with in the past. I think a mature individual that is part of EA would say something like: Of course we don't expect everyone to instantly stop everything they are doing to pursue EA goals; we are just pointing out that if your goals are to make a great impact in this world, you have to have some hard reflections on your actions, since there are some amazing ways to help individuals that look different than what you initially may have had in mind. We can't expect you to join Giving What We Can right away and start giving 10% of your income, but perhaps we can encourage you to consider whether you can make giving a larger part of your life, and that in time, you might consider giving to more cost-effective charities / organizations than you have in the past. And none of this is to imply that what you had been doing is bad, or that continuing to give to a local community is wrong. We are just here, with open arms, happy to have a conversation about helping as many individuals as possible, whatever your (psychological, financial, etc) constraints are. ps - I honestly would be happy to chat :)