3 ms·
Helping your neighbor builds culture. You help build a culture where we don't just accept some bad things than can be avoided, and that will reciprocate back on
by xorcist 4y ago
Helping your neighbor builds culture. You help build a culture where we don't just accept some bad things than can be avoided, and that will reciprocate back on you in the long run.
Humans are herd animals. Each individual has a limited life, but together we build cultures that transcend millennia. That is what people refer to when they call on someone to leave the world better than they found it.
We should not accept for others to die of cancer where it is preventable, for example. But the effective way to achieve that is not for everyone to find a well paying day job and donate to cancer treatments for others. That's where the political undertones of EA leads them astray.
The more effective way is to build a society where cancer research and care in general is regarded as one of the more important things we do, and something to strive for. That it is something that should be given the resources it requires to achieve the goal, and that taking part of that is considered a fundamental right. That is where taxes come in. That doesn't mean taxes are good, or that it is necessarily the only way to implement such a system, only that it is the most effective method we have found.
Humanity can certainly eradicate malaria, for example, if the whole society decided it was the most important thing to do. The hard part is to nudge culture in that direction.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI don't think you really supported your idea that collectivism and taxes are the most effective method. Why do you think that everyone taking personal responsibility to maximize the good they do is inferior to taxes and government directed good. I believe the opposite. Relying on the government is used as an excuse for personal inaction - essentially outsourcing altruism to 3rd party. People think, I shouldnt have to help anyone or do something as simple as pick up litter, because I already payed taxes for someone else to do that. I would argue that it is better for people to work well paying jobs, take individual responsibility to support actions they believe have the most benefit. The inverse is that people dont optimize income, pay the minimum tax, and have no individual control or responsibility over what it is spent on or how effectively it is.
- xorcist 4y agoThat's because I said nothing of the sort. Collectivism and government direction are your words, not mine. The cancer treatment example was meant to show that culture is what matters in the long run, as the donation model is clearly less effective in this case. Taxes are mere implementation. They follow, they do not lead. They are not relevant to the example.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI agree with your boarder point that culture is what matters most. However, you say a society where individuals choose to donate is not effective. (I would call this culture, and culturally driven progress). You contrast it with a society where there is a general goal, and then claim taxes are the best way to achieve this. ( I would call this collectivism and government) What reason do you have to think that centralized decision making and giving is more efficient than decentralized decision making and giving is. I don't follow the distinction you are trying to draw. Why is one option culture focused and the other not? My position is that the voluntary decentralized option is culture driven, and the compulsory option is not.
- germandiago 4y agoI totally agree with this. And the behaviors show that in psychological tests when grouping people. Responsibility becomes "fuzzy" and there is way more inaction.