4 ms·

> I don’t think this actually works in reality, as many EA examples have shown. Can you give some examples of this failing? Naively many examples of things imp

> I don’t think this actually works in reality, as many EA examples have shown. Can you give some examples of this failing? Naively many examples of things improving that i know of were either very boring bureaucratic endeavors or required heavily involvement in bureaucracy. The Clean Air and Water Act, the FDA, the Civil Rights Act, all required people at the level of government or some other large social group to organize and plan things and make them happen. And thus you need people with the specific area knowledge and group connections in that area to make those things happen. Or is this a mis-reading of your claim?

keiferski 3y ago
I was mostly making a reference to SBF, but sure, certainly there are large scale projects that require boring bureaucratic knowledge. But I am assuming that the audience of the post is not people that want to build a career in policy. Because if that’s the case, this advice is a little too obvious - of course you should become an expert in X thing if you want to build a career in X field. More generally though, my claim is just that solutions tend to be better when they are implemented locally and pragmatically, and not when thought of as abstract problems that can be solved by study and thought.
- metalcrow 3y ago
  Ah, i see. That makes more sense, although the focus on abstract problems was not the lesson i gathered from the post. In fact, my impression was that this post was actually saying more of the opposite. Don't "dream up novel UN structures, spend time in abstract game theory", but instead get a job in some concrete and simple (i.e non-abstract) field that allows you to then be involved in policy making in some way, either as a policy making leader or an expert who can assist with making said policy. I mean, it's examples of Privacy / data protection laws and Biochemical supply chains are pretty concrete and encourage pragmatic solutions if it's literally your job.
- Hermitian909 3y ago
  Probably not a good idea to judge all of EA but SBF. EA long predates SBF and had some huge wins by seriously asking the question "which charities save the most lives per dollar?" (technically: Quality Adjusted Years of Life, or QUALY). Really helped the world realize that things like mosquito nets in Africa were _grossly_ underfunded[0]. While I'm not an EA myself, accomplishments like Givewell[1] have really helped me keep respect for the movement - walking the walk is always orders of magnitude harder and more complex than talking the talk after all. [0] https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/ea-global-2018-amf-rob-mather https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/ea-global-2018-am... [1] https://www.givewell.org/ https://www.givewell.org/
  - keiferski 3y ago
    EA is just a modified form of utilitarianism, which has plenty of its own flaws. https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/z93koy/what_exactly_is_effective_altruism_and_why_is_it/ https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/z93koy/what_... https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/the-new-moral-mathematics/ https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/the-new-moral-mathemat...
    - metalcrow 3y ago
      By modified form i think you mean "implemented" form. Unlike pretty much every other ethical theory they actually practice what they believe in, which is really their defining characteristic. Even Christians don't do that much charitable giving nowadays. Also, frankly, it's really strange to see people rushing to attack them. Are mosquito nets and 3rd world children really so hated?
      - keiferski 3y ago
        No, I mean modified. EA is clearly drawing on a lot of utilitarian ideas, but it’s not exactly the same thing. The comment on implementation is neither here nor there. Plenty of people implement their ethical theories. I don’t know how implementing something is an argument for the correctness of that thing. Certainly it’s good that a lot of people don’t implement their ethical theories. Even Christians don't do that much charitable giving nowadays. Every source I can find says exactly the opposite.

keiferski 3y ago

I was mostly making a reference to SBF, but sure, certainly there are large scale projects that require boring bureaucratic knowledge. But I am assuming that the audience of the post is not people that want to build a career in policy. Because if that’s the case, this advice is a little too obvious - of course you should become an expert in X thing if you want to build a career in X field. More generally though, my claim is just that solutions tend to be better when they are implemented locally and pragmatically, and not when thought of as abstract problems that can be solved by study and thought.

metalcrow 3y ago
Ah, i see. That makes more sense, although the focus on abstract problems was not the lesson i gathered from the post. In fact, my impression was that this post was actually saying more of the opposite. Don't "dream up novel UN structures, spend time in abstract game theory", but instead get a job in some concrete and simple (i.e non-abstract) field that allows you to then be involved in policy making in some way, either as a policy making leader or an expert who can assist with making said policy. I mean, it's examples of Privacy / data protection laws and Biochemical supply chains are pretty concrete and encourage pragmatic solutions if it's literally your job.
Hermitian909 3y ago
Probably not a good idea to judge all of EA but SBF. EA long predates SBF and had some huge wins by seriously asking the question "which charities save the most lives per dollar?" (technically: Quality Adjusted Years of Life, or QUALY). Really helped the world realize that things like mosquito nets in Africa were _grossly_ underfunded[0]. While I'm not an EA myself, accomplishments like Givewell[1] have really helped me keep respect for the movement - walking the walk is always orders of magnitude harder and more complex than talking the talk after all. [0] https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/ea-global-2018-amf-rob-mather https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/ea-global-2018-am... [1] https://www.givewell.org/ https://www.givewell.org/
- keiferski 3y ago
  EA is just a modified form of utilitarianism, which has plenty of its own flaws. https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/z93koy/what_exactly_is_effective_altruism_and_why_is_it/ https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/z93koy/what_... https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/the-new-moral-mathematics/ https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/the-new-moral-mathemat...
  - metalcrow 3y ago
    By modified form i think you mean "implemented" form. Unlike pretty much every other ethical theory they actually practice what they believe in, which is really their defining characteristic. Even Christians don't do that much charitable giving nowadays. Also, frankly, it's really strange to see people rushing to attack them. Are mosquito nets and 3rd world children really so hated?
    - keiferski 3y ago
      No, I mean modified. EA is clearly drawing on a lot of utilitarian ideas, but it’s not exactly the same thing. The comment on implementation is neither here nor there. Plenty of people implement their ethical theories. I don’t know how implementing something is an argument for the correctness of that thing. Certainly it’s good that a lot of people don’t implement their ethical theories. Even Christians don't do that much charitable giving nowadays. Every source I can find says exactly the opposite.