5 ms·

There are surely two separate issues here? One is whether it's bad to eg. take first world crypto investors' money and use it to stop hundreds of thousands of p

by Joeboy 4y ago

There are surely two separate issues here? One is whether it's bad to eg. take first world crypto investors' money and use it to stop hundreds of thousands of people dying of preventable diseases in developing countries. Personally, I think not really, or at least it'd be an odd thing to be upset about? Happy to hear the arguments in favour of huge numbers of preventable deaths. Where that narrative gets problematic wrt SBF is that, aiui in the eyes of EA "leadership", "too many" EA individuals choose to allocate their donations to boring global health causes, rather than building the movement or weird long-termist stuff. So with that in mind, the obvious decision was to take the friendly billionaire money and put it into those "important" areas. Which means now, we have a popular and hard to refute characterization of EA as an organization that raises money for itself and weird causes normal people don't care about. But, like I said, the majority of EA money goes towards global health, ie. stopping people dying.

blitzar 4y ago
One is whether it's bad to eg. take first world Professional software developers' money and use it to stop hundreds of thousands of people dying of preventable diseases in developing countries. Personally, I think not really, or at least it'd be an odd thing to be upset about?
- Joeboy 4y ago
  I think you're making that comment with the idea that it's self-evidently wrong? Do I understand you correctly? I find it really weird that people are so glib about the "hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths" part. I don't get how on earth people weigh that as less important than the financial welfare of relatively well-off people in richer countries. Maybe this is some basic failure of humanity on my part.
  - OJFord 4y ago
    The problem (and I think roughly the point being made) is that if you follow that logic through, then surely almost everyone here should have the vast majority of their possessions & wealth taken, to fund the equalising up-lifting of others. Charity and world aid is in a continual discussion & discovery of what we collectively think is 'good enough', helping people get to something that is perhaps 'not disaster', but nevertheless falls far short of the standards the gifters expect for themselves.
    - blitzar 4y ago
      > The problem (and I think roughly the point being made) is that if you follow that logic through, then surely almost everyone here should have the vast majority of their possessions & wealth taken, to fund the equalising up-lifting of others. And if not software developers why not? Who gets to chose which grift is a grift and which is an honest living? > I find it really weird that people are so glib about the "hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths" part. So you agree - software devlopers, who make vastly more than the average person should have their wealth siezed to save those people? Or are you the one being glib aboout saving lives?
      - Joeboy 4y ago
        Have you ever been close to anybody who died? If you have prevented that, and then you multiply that by a few hundred thousand, do you not get close to a place where rich people's investments not panning out doesn't seem like something to get too upset about? It's interesting to me that there's a kind of horseshoe effect here with the "rich people must be protected" on the same side as the "rich people are evil" people.
        blitzar 4y ago
        > do you not get close to a place where rich people's investments not panning out Rich people like software developers And investments like every cent they earn Absoultely 10000% happy with taking every cent of it and saving as many lives as possible. Why are you against this?
      - FeepingCreature 4y ago
        Humans have very strong instincts against exploitation by peers. I think the appropriate answer here is: "Sure, let's seize the wealth of approximately everyone in a western country." Singling out a particular group, even though it's less seizure in total, raises people's hackles for reasons entirely unrelated to whether redistribution is a good idea.
        4y ago

by Joeboy 4y ago

blitzar 4y ago

One is whether it's bad to eg. take first world Professional software developers' money and use it to stop hundreds of thousands of people dying of preventable diseases in developing countries. Personally, I think not really, or at least it'd be an odd thing to be upset about?

Joeboy 4y ago
I think you're making that comment with the idea that it's self-evidently wrong? Do I understand you correctly? I find it really weird that people are so glib about the "hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths" part. I don't get how on earth people weigh that as less important than the financial welfare of relatively well-off people in richer countries. Maybe this is some basic failure of humanity on my part.
- OJFord 4y ago
  The problem (and I think roughly the point being made) is that if you follow that logic through, then surely almost everyone here should have the vast majority of their possessions & wealth taken, to fund the equalising up-lifting of others. Charity and world aid is in a continual discussion & discovery of what we collectively think is 'good enough', helping people get to something that is perhaps 'not disaster', but nevertheless falls far short of the standards the gifters expect for themselves.
  - blitzar 4y ago
    > The problem (and I think roughly the point being made) is that if you follow that logic through, then surely almost everyone here should have the vast majority of their possessions & wealth taken, to fund the equalising up-lifting of others. And if not software developers why not? Who gets to chose which grift is a grift and which is an honest living? > I find it really weird that people are so glib about the "hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths" part. So you agree - software devlopers, who make vastly more than the average person should have their wealth siezed to save those people? Or are you the one being glib aboout saving lives?
    - Joeboy 4y ago
      Have you ever been close to anybody who died? If you have prevented that, and then you multiply that by a few hundred thousand, do you not get close to a place where rich people's investments not panning out doesn't seem like something to get too upset about? It's interesting to me that there's a kind of horseshoe effect here with the "rich people must be protected" on the same side as the "rich people are evil" people.
      - blitzar 4y ago
        > do you not get close to a place where rich people's investments not panning out Rich people like software developers And investments like every cent they earn Absoultely 10000% happy with taking every cent of it and saving as many lives as possible. Why are you against this?
    - FeepingCreature 4y ago
      Humans have very strong instincts against exploitation by peers. I think the appropriate answer here is: "Sure, let's seize the wealth of approximately everyone in a western country." Singling out a particular group, even though it's less seizure in total, raises people's hackles for reasons entirely unrelated to whether redistribution is a good idea.
      - 4y ago