4 ms·
Technically "long-termism" should lead them straight to nihilism. Because, eventually, everything will end. One way or another. The odds are just 1. At some poi
by bena 1y ago
Technically "long-termism" should lead them straight to nihilism. Because, eventually, everything will end. One way or another. The odds are just 1. At some point, there are no more future humans. The number of humans are zero. Also, due to the nature of the infinite, any finite thing is essentially a rounding error and not worth concerning oneself with.
I get the feeling these people often want to seem smarter than they are, regardless of how smart they are. And they want to get money to ostensibly "consider these issues", but really they want money for nothing.
If they wanted to do right by the future masses, they should be looking to the things that are affecting us right now. But they treat those issues as if they'll work out in the wash.
- aspenmayer 1y ago> Technically "long-termism" should lead them straight to nihilism. Because, eventually, everything will end. One way or another. The odds are just 1. At some point, there are no more future humans. The number of humans are zero. Also, due to the nature of the infinite, any finite thing is essentially a rounding error and not worth concerning oneself with. The current sums invested and donated in altruist causes are rounding errors themselves compared to GDPs of countries, so the revealed preferences of those investing and donating to altruist causes is to care about the future and the present also. Are you saying that they should give a greater preference to help those who already exist rather than those who may exist in the future? I see a lot of Peter Singer’s ideas in modern “effective” altruism, but I get the sense from your comment that you don’t think that they have good reasons for doing what they do, or that their reason leads them to support well-meaning but ineffective solutions. I am trying to understand your position without misrepresenting your point or goals. Are you naysaying or do you have an alternative? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
- bena 1y agoI think it's essentially a grift. An excuse to do nothing while looking like you care and reaping rewards. If they wanted to help, they should be focused on the now. Global poverty, climate change, despotic world leaders. They should be aligning themselves against such things. But instead what we see is essentially not that. Effective altruism is a lot like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, a bit of a misnomer.
- skinnymuch 1y agoAgreed. To be pedantic, DPRK is run via the will of the people to a degree comparable to any country. A bigger misnomer is the west calling liberal “democracy”, just democracy.
- tpm 1y agoEven if I understand what you mean, DPRK is very far away from democratic countries. It's not comparable at all.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- skinnymuch 1y agoMy point is that most people who see that think a country like America or Europe are democracies and that is partly why it would be a misnomer. When it is arguable that DPRK state is more a will of the people than the west. The elite letting the people choose between a few candidates is not a democracy. There are no “democratic” countries in that way.
- mensetmanusman 1y ago“ When it is arguable that DPRK state is more a will of the people than the west.” Ba da Ching
- skinnymuch 1y agoWhat do people like you use to prove the DPRK is auth, a dictatorship, and so bad while so smugly believing they have “freedom” and “democracy” better than the Global South? Western state depts and western state directed media manufacturing consent - ba da ching Don’t forget — the enemies of the west are all bad and evil. And the west is free and fair and democratic and not a scourge on the rest of the world.
- GuinansEyebrows 1y ago> But they treat those issues as if they'll work out in the wash. there's something pathologically, virally sick about wealth accumulation's primary function being the further accumulation of wealth. for a movement rooted in "rationalism," EA seems pretty irrationally focused on excusing antisocial behavior.
- Viliam1234 1y ago> wealth accumulation's primary function being the further accumulation of wealth Then we are lucky that EA promotes giving more to charity as the primary function of accumulation of wealth. > EA seems pretty irrationally focused on excusing antisocial behavior. Is a guy getting a well-paid job at Microsoft and donating half of his salary to African charities really your best example of antisocial behavior?
- GuinansEyebrows 1y ago> Then we are lucky that EA promotes giving more to charity as the primary function of accumulation of wealth. no, we are not lucky. EA-good-because-charity-good is a brain-pretzel way of lobbying against equitable taxation. > Is a guy getting a well-paid job at Microsoft and donating half of his salary to African charities really your best example of antisocial behavior? you're inventing a competitive debate regarding a hypothetical "best example of antisocial behavior". i didn't target anyone specifically with any part of my post.
- Viliam1234 1y agoWell, I base my opinion about EA on specific people I happen to know, such as https://www.jefftk.com/news/ea https://www.jefftk.com/news/ea , but of course that shouldn't stop anyone from making up edgy interpretations and posting them as a fact. Because what is the point of discussing actual effective altruists when imaginary villains are a much more interesting topic.
- bena 1y agoWhat it promotes and what happens are two different things. “The purpose of a system is what it does.”