3 ms·
The problem with billionaire philanthropy (which is what the term 'effective altruism' was intended to replace as part of a rebranding effort) is that it tends
by photochemsyn 3y ago
The problem with billionaire philanthropy (which is what the term 'effective altruism' was intended to replace as part of a rebranding effort) is that it tends to be self-serving and opaque.
E.g. we don't want secretive private 'do-gooder' foundations running global public health programs because they're always incentivized to deliver their funds to the private investment interests of the billionaires in charge, rather than say bidding out contracts in a transparent manner. Similar arguments apply to the educational system, to clean air and water efforts, etc.
The better solution is to (1) increase tax rates on the wealthiest sectors of the economy by restoring 1960s-era tax brackets for income, corporate, and capital gains and (2) change how those funds are spent at the federal and state level, i.e. move away from funding foreign wars and towards fixing all the basic domestic problems.
The reason you want government agencies, not private foundations, in charge of this is that they're subject to public scrutiny, FOIA requests by journalists, etc.
In other words, 'effective altruism' is just another con artist program intended to give legitimacy and cover to the USA's ridiculously greedy, out-of-control and amoral investment capitalism culture.
- adamgordonbell 3y agocitation needed I thought EA was people buying malaria nets while quoting Scott Alexander and reading the sequences.
- yboris 3y agoYour first sentence betrays lack of familiarity with EA. It is offensive to me that you state it as fact. EA started as a continuation of Peter Singer's argument in "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" (1972), as a progression after the founding of Giving What We Can (thousands of people giving at least 10% of their pre-tax income to cost-effective charities). Have you ever read about it here? https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-effective-altruism https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-e...
- Joeboy 3y agoAs per the other replies, you've seriously misunderstood some fundamentals about EA. But aside from that: > The better solution is to (1) increase tax rates on the wealthiest sectors of the economy by restoring 1960s-era tax brackets for income, corporate, and capital gains and (2) change how those funds are spent at the federal and state level, i.e. move away from funding foreign wars and towards fixing all the basic domestic problems. Why are these mutually exclusive? Why can't I favour progressive taxation and better foreign / domestic policies, while also making donations to stop people dying of preventable diseases? Obviously EA people aren't all the same, but I'd say that was a fairly typical position among EAs, and I see nothing wrong with it. If there is some slight way in which donating to malaria prevention as at odds with taxing the rich, is it really worth the large death toll associated with withdrawing funding from the former?
- photochemsyn 3y agoMalaria is a good example. It used to be endemic in the southeastern United States but was eradicated within a couple of decades - not by billionaire philanthropy, but by a robust government-managed public health effort: > "Malaria affected 30 percent of the population in the region when the TVA was incorporated in 1933. The Public Health Service played a vital role in the research and control operations and by 1947, the disease was essentially eliminated." https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.html https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.htm... In the absence of basic local public health infrastructure and disease monitoring and response agencies, i.e. government services, malaria eradication is highly unlikely and all the mosquito nets in the world won't change that.
- Joeboy 3y agoHow will it help if people stop donating to the Against Malaria Foundation? It seems to me that'll cost a lot of lives and not benefit public health infrastructure one jot.
- kdmccormick 3y agoHi, I'm pro-EA and also in favor of significantly higher taxes, higher infra spending, medicare for all, UBI, and changes to corporate law that would lessen the power that multinational corporations have over developing countries. A lot of EAs feel that way, perhaps most. I can't singlehandedly change the US tax code, budget, and foreign policy. But I can donate a chunk of my income, and I can participate in online communties which debate the most effective way to spend those donations. So I do, and EA has made it easy for me to do that. How does that square with your made-up history about billionaire philanthropy? What do you do to make the world a better place?
- photochemsyn 3y ago"What do you do to make the world a better place?" Work to limit the scope and reach of US intellectual property law? (The world is a rather complex place, but patents have been doing more to limit technological progress such as access to clean water than to stimulate it.) And that's not 'made-up history' either, look up Ford Foundation South Africa CIA for example.
- kdmccormick 3y ago> Work to limit the scope and reach of US intellectual property law? Very cool. I don't doubt that it's impactful work. I still think you're way off base with your views on EA :)
- Joeboy 3y agoBut, "which is what the term 'effective altruism' was intended to replace as part of a rebranding effort" is something you've made up, no?