4 ms·

I'm relatively actively involved in EA and I don't think anyone believes just giving people things will make a whole society wealthy, nor is it practical. For c

I'm relatively actively involved in EA and I don't think anyone believes just giving people things will make a whole society wealthy, nor is it practical. For certain cases like Givedirectly (direct cash transfers) the question is more about efficacy of aid. If I think of what EA really stands for, it's about doing things that are maximally effective based on a rationale view of your aims. You can question lots about the assumptions people make to get to the end goal (I personally think they prioritize too much aid vs. helping with foundations of economic development) but I don't think the first two points you make match with my experience of EA in practice. On your second point, I don't agree at all. Should you do as much as you personally can? Sure. But if you're a multi-millionaire and you want to feed people, you really are telling me it's necessary that that person hands out each piece of food for it to be moral? That doesn't make sense to me at all.

m101 4y ago
Firstly, i am developing my own ideas all the time on this. I would suggest that people who want to make a difference with money do so on a local level. If they can create a local eden then perhaps someone else will notice and create another one locally where they are. It's kind of like small scale experiments which you can test and the ones that work will naturally be extended for little or no extra money.
- eru 4y ago
  Nobody minds, if you spend your own time and money to make your local community nicer. It's just that this is (most likely) not the most effective way to make the world better. And if your thesis is that this is the most effective way, because of copying etc, it would be useful to run some controlled experiments.