4 ms·
> You KNOW the malaria nets are better than the donation to the local soccer team. I most certainly don't know that. The more local, the more immediate, the le
by throw_pm23 4y ago
> You KNOW the malaria nets are better than the donation to the local soccer team.
I most certainly don't know that. The more local, the more immediate, the less distance between action and effect, the less unintended consequences, the better.
- sweetheart 4y agoHow do you come to that conclusion?
- throw_pm23 4y ago1) I prefer what I can verify, understand, and immediately experience to what I cannot. 2) I use the heuristic that where there are more participants and intermediaries, it is more likely that something ugly will happen even if the original intentions were noble, which is already a big if. 3) I prefer improving my own neighborhood which also affects me, to some abstract global goal which I find less tangible. EDIT: 4) I am put off by the grandiosity of "saving lives" far away, and I prefer more modest goals, e.g. provide a warm soup for the local soccer team.
- lupire 4y agoIf you are saying that a near guaranteed miniscule benefit to rich people outweighs a risky gift to desperately sthenuffering people, you know you are doing so little good that it may as well be zero.
- throw_pm23 4y agoA "near zero" contribution would in many cases be a major improvement to what ends up being a massive negative contribution.
- sweetheart 4y agoWhy the parenthesis around “saving lives”? You seem skeptical that actually contributing to saving lives is possible.
- easygenes 4y agoYeah, I'm genuinely curious as well. Malaria nets are cheap, well studied as highly effective, and directly prevent debilitating and life-threatening illness. We're talking about something that can fairly immediately save real existing lives, no hypotheticals or easy to conceive of major deleterious second order effects.
- samus 4y agoConsidering that malaria infestation has historically complicated making use of the land available to humans all over the world, we know that efforts towards managing and eradicating malaria improves the human condition. Resistance to malaria and other diseases was one of the reasons why humans were trafficked all over the world.
- throw_pm23 4y agoI'll let historians sort that out, I care mostly for my immediate neighborhood and local effects.
- samus 4y agoMostly caring about your immediate neighbourhood and local effects does not mean ignoring that other places and their history exists. For Malaria, there is not even a debate that it historically was a very widespread disease with high impact in economy and also in warfare. It is estimated that 60000 US soldiers died to Malaria alone in WW II.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- circular_lights 4y ago10/10 would pick local soccer team anytime. I am not utilitarian and I do not believe in human interchangeability. I value the health of local youth in my backyard far more, especially when the cause is boys in sports.
- sweetheart 4y agoSure, but _why_ is the question. I cannot understand how you think more good comes from making sure the local boys soccer club has a clean field to play vs. ensuring 4 families will sleep without the risk of contracting malaria. What makes you value the former more than the latter? If you were the family facing malaria, and someone tried to donate the nets to you, would you sell them and donate the proceeds to their local soccer club?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- circular_lights 4y ago"More good" reeks of nerdy utilitarianism which I completely reject. What makes me value the soccer team is love and kinship and vitalism. Mine extends to the local boys playing soccer. I want to see them thrive. I do not care about the malaria net folks. No ill will - I just do not care, I want them occupying no part of my brain. And certainly no dorky nerds unable to comprehend human reality and attempting to force everyone in their abstract streamlined toy-reality with Philosophy 101 word games will change my mind.
- sweetheart 4y agoyikes