3 ms·

> Let's keep in mind that most people don't have access to basic hygiene and food safety. Agree, whole thing comes across as notionally adjacent to shit like "

by ngcazz 3y ago

> Let's keep in mind that most people don't have access to basic hygiene and food safety. Agree, whole thing comes across as notionally adjacent to shit like "effective altruism" and disguising a greedy disregard for material reality as equitabiity

eutectic 3y ago
I don't see the connection.
luplex 3y ago
I feel the need to remind you that the Effective Altruism community is also moving billions of dollars to substantially help the extreme poor. And the original commenter is wrong, 91% of people do have access to basic hygiene (i.e. hand washing facilities), according to https://ourworldindata.org/hygiene https://ourworldindata.org/hygiene And only 28% of people suffer from moderate to severe food insecurity: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-with-moderate-or-severe-food-insecurity?tab=chart&country=SRB~ROU~NER~OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-with-... So really most people have the basics covered.
- tgv 3y ago
  Only 28%? That's over 2 billion people. > I feel the need to remind you that the Effective Altruism community is also moving billions of dollars to substantially help the extreme poor. The Dutch government alone spends $5B per year on aid to the poorest country, and The Netherlands is a small country. Effective Altruism is just a guise to get political influence through capital.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    It doesn't even have to be a scheme. It's just selfish and greedy people trying to rationalize their selfishness and greed by being even more selfish and greedy. Of course people who already think they are god's divine gift to the world will think they would be the best to give out or pick the recipient of billions in charity over a more democratic system.
  - 542354234235 3y ago
    >Only 28%? That's over 2 billion people But wasn't that in direct response to the claim that most people did not have that access? It feels like either a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of what they were saying.

by ngcazz 3y ago

eutectic 3y ago

I don't see the connection.

luplex 3y ago

I feel the need to remind you that the Effective Altruism community is also moving billions of dollars to substantially help the extreme poor. And the original commenter is wrong, 91% of people do have access to basic hygiene (i.e. hand washing facilities), according to https://ourworldindata.org/hygiene https://ourworldindata.org/hygiene And only 28% of people suffer from moderate to severe food insecurity: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-with-moderate-or-severe-food-insecurity?tab=chart&country=SRB~ROU~NER~OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-with-... So really most people have the basics covered.

tgv 3y ago
Only 28%? That's over 2 billion people. > I feel the need to remind you that the Effective Altruism community is also moving billions of dollars to substantially help the extreme poor. The Dutch government alone spends $5B per year on aid to the poorest country, and The Netherlands is a small country. Effective Altruism is just a guise to get political influence through capital.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  It doesn't even have to be a scheme. It's just selfish and greedy people trying to rationalize their selfishness and greed by being even more selfish and greedy. Of course people who already think they are god's divine gift to the world will think they would be the best to give out or pick the recipient of billions in charity over a more democratic system.
- 542354234235 3y ago
  >Only 28%? That's over 2 billion people But wasn't that in direct response to the claim that most people did not have that access? It feels like either a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of what they were saying.