5 ms·

I've read the Bible. It is mostly not about "teachings of Love and Kindness". It's mostly about faith in and obedience to God. The fundamentals of Christianity

I've read the Bible. It is mostly not about "teachings of Love and Kindness". It's mostly about faith in and obedience to God. The fundamentals of Christianity are bad. The fundamentals of EA are good. You can't assess a philosphy by its worst adherents. However, you could attempt to quantify the net good/bad done by its adherents and make an argument about the effect the philosophy has on human personality. But then you'd be doing science and statistics in pursuit of understanding how to make humanity the best it can be, and you'd find yourself in trouble: You don't want to be associated with EA, but they keep emailing you to hear about your findings. :) Earning to Give is to EA like Copyleft is to Free Software. It's on the more radical side of the philosphy, and it definitely leads to some internal contradictions. It is, at times, contentious within the movement. There are a lot of people who care more about harm minimization who may oppose Copyleft and Earning to Give, and there are people who are more focused on net-good-maximization who may argue in favor of both. There's no getting around those arguments because there's no getting around complexity when it comes to broad new philosophies.

ElevenLathe 4y ago
Not to sidestep the discussion because of your metaphor, but I just don't understand it. What Free Software is there that doesn't rely on copyleft? Just public domain stuff? If so, you're talking about such a fringe part of the Free Software movement that it basically doesn't exist except by accident (when people forget to license their software) and is even more extreme than RMS, who is usually considered the absolute far "left" of Free Software as a movement. Is that really the analogy you're trying to draw with Earning to Give?
- leereeves 4y ago
  Copyleft is the requirement that derivative works carry the same license ("share-alike"). There's a lot of Free Software that doesn't have that requirement.
  - ElevenLathe 4y ago
    Can you name one? A sibling comment says the MIT license is one, but that requires derivative works to include the license, so it seems also to be copyleft under this definition. What is the point of releasing software with a license that says you can strip the license off of it and do whatever you want? This is effectively the same as releasing it to the public domain.
    - leereeves 4y ago
      The MIT license requires attribution (in the form of the copyright notice and the license file) for the MIT licensed code. But it doesn't require that other code in the project be released under the MIT license (or even released at all), which is what copyleft would do. It's pretty close to releasing it to the public domain, and the point of that is that it's actually really hard to release something to the public domain worldwide. Just saying something like "I release this code to the public domain" doesn't have the same effect in every country.
      - ElevenLathe 4y ago
        Interesting, I've never encountered this extremely narrow definition of copyleft. Thanks for explaining.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      MIT isn’t copyleft. If you want to include an MIT licensed work in your project, your obligation is to say “I am using $foo, here is a copy of the MIT licence: $text”, and that’s it. If you want to include a GPL licensed work in your project, your project is now also GPL licensed, and you are obliged to make the source available. (I’m not a lawyer etc.)
- thethirdone 4y ago
  The MIT license is probably the most notable non-copyleft open source license. There is a ton of MIT licensed code out there so it is not a fringe part of Free Software.
- rcoveson 4y ago
  Copyleft[0] accounts for a significant but minority fraction of free software. The GPL is a Copyleft licesense, but the MIT and Apache licenses (which together might account for a majority of free software) are not. Copyleft refers to the restriction that derivative works also be subject to the same Copyleft terms; it's the "infectious" nature of the license. Having any license requirements at all, e.g. attribution, inclusion of license alongside distributed copies, etc. does not make the license Copyleft. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
constantcrying 4y ago
>But then you'd be doing science and statistics in pursuit of understanding how to make humanity the best it can be I can not possibly imagine an idea which has done more harm to humanity than that one.
- ben_w 4y ago
  That’s a failure of imagination. Three of the most iconically evil world leaders of the previous century tried (if I’m feeling generous) to make humanity better by their own definition, but without allowing the science and the statistics tell them they were wrong about the basics.
  - constantcrying 4y ago
    "This time we learned from the mistakes of the past." "... the boy began to delight in his daring flight, and abandoning his guide, drawn by desire for the heavens, soared higher. His nearness to the devouring sun softened the fragrant wax that held the wings: and the wax melted: he flailed with bare arms, but losing his oar-like wings, could not ride the air. Even as his mouth was crying his father’s name, it vanished into the dark blue sea ..." - Ovid
    - ben_w 4y ago
      I have no idea what rhetorical point you’re trying to make with a reference to… Icarus? Especially as small-r rationality (i.e. science and statistics) is how we went from manned flight being only a myth, to walking on the moon.
      - constantcrying 4y ago
        >I have no idea what rhetorical point you’re trying to make with a reference to… Icarus? Deadalus was a great inventor and scientist. When imprisoned he devises a means for him and his son to escape, in fact he realizes one of mans greatest achievements, flight. While he is able to control his invention and makes good use out of it (making sure to avoid both extremes), his son can neither control himself nor the technology given to him. In the desire to reach ever greater heights he is ultimately destroyed. The point is (or at least the one which is so easily read into the story) that all technology is dangerous and that great care needs to be put into how we make use of it. The idea of using statistics and quantitative methods of the social sciences to devise the best way for humans to live is Icarus grasping at the sun. Very smart people have found new ideas, novel methods and all the mathematics to answer one of mankinds greatest question, if we let them use it a great future awaits. This already was the folly of "scientific socialism", and your new attempt at it will land you in the Icarian see, just like last time.

ElevenLathe 4y ago

Not to sidestep the discussion because of your metaphor, but I just don't understand it. What Free Software is there that doesn't rely on copyleft? Just public domain stuff? If so, you're talking about such a fringe part of the Free Software movement that it basically doesn't exist except by accident (when people forget to license their software) and is even more extreme than RMS, who is usually considered the absolute far "left" of Free Software as a movement. Is that really the analogy you're trying to draw with Earning to Give?

leereeves 4y ago
Copyleft is the requirement that derivative works carry the same license ("share-alike"). There's a lot of Free Software that doesn't have that requirement.
- ElevenLathe 4y ago
  Can you name one? A sibling comment says the MIT license is one, but that requires derivative works to include the license, so it seems also to be copyleft under this definition. What is the point of releasing software with a license that says you can strip the license off of it and do whatever you want? This is effectively the same as releasing it to the public domain.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    The MIT license requires attribution (in the form of the copyright notice and the license file) for the MIT licensed code. But it doesn't require that other code in the project be released under the MIT license (or even released at all), which is what copyleft would do. It's pretty close to releasing it to the public domain, and the point of that is that it's actually really hard to release something to the public domain worldwide. Just saying something like "I release this code to the public domain" doesn't have the same effect in every country.
    - ElevenLathe 4y ago
      Interesting, I've never encountered this extremely narrow definition of copyleft. Thanks for explaining.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    MIT isn’t copyleft. If you want to include an MIT licensed work in your project, your obligation is to say “I am using $foo, here is a copy of the MIT licence: $text”, and that’s it. If you want to include a GPL licensed work in your project, your project is now also GPL licensed, and you are obliged to make the source available. (I’m not a lawyer etc.)
thethirdone 4y ago
The MIT license is probably the most notable non-copyleft open source license. There is a ton of MIT licensed code out there so it is not a fringe part of Free Software.
rcoveson 4y ago
Copyleft[0] accounts for a significant but minority fraction of free software. The GPL is a Copyleft licesense, but the MIT and Apache licenses (which together might account for a majority of free software) are not. Copyleft refers to the restriction that derivative works also be subject to the same Copyleft terms; it's the "infectious" nature of the license. Having any license requirements at all, e.g. attribution, inclusion of license alongside distributed copies, etc. does not make the license Copyleft. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

constantcrying 4y ago

>But then you'd be doing science and statistics in pursuit of understanding how to make humanity the best it can be I can not possibly imagine an idea which has done more harm to humanity than that one.

ben_w 4y ago
That’s a failure of imagination. Three of the most iconically evil world leaders of the previous century tried (if I’m feeling generous) to make humanity better by their own definition, but without allowing the science and the statistics tell them they were wrong about the basics.
- constantcrying 4y ago
  "This time we learned from the mistakes of the past." "... the boy began to delight in his daring flight, and abandoning his guide, drawn by desire for the heavens, soared higher. His nearness to the devouring sun softened the fragrant wax that held the wings: and the wax melted: he flailed with bare arms, but losing his oar-like wings, could not ride the air. Even as his mouth was crying his father’s name, it vanished into the dark blue sea ..." - Ovid
  - ben_w 4y ago
    I have no idea what rhetorical point you’re trying to make with a reference to… Icarus? Especially as small-r rationality (i.e. science and statistics) is how we went from manned flight being only a myth, to walking on the moon.
    - constantcrying 4y ago
      >I have no idea what rhetorical point you’re trying to make with a reference to… Icarus? Deadalus was a great inventor and scientist. When imprisoned he devises a means for him and his son to escape, in fact he realizes one of mans greatest achievements, flight. While he is able to control his invention and makes good use out of it (making sure to avoid both extremes), his son can neither control himself nor the technology given to him. In the desire to reach ever greater heights he is ultimately destroyed. The point is (or at least the one which is so easily read into the story) that all technology is dangerous and that great care needs to be put into how we make use of it. The idea of using statistics and quantitative methods of the social sciences to devise the best way for humans to live is Icarus grasping at the sun. Very smart people have found new ideas, novel methods and all the mathematics to answer one of mankinds greatest question, if we let them use it a great future awaits. This already was the folly of "scientific socialism", and your new attempt at it will land you in the Icarian see, just like last time.