7 ms·

Philip Greenspun reviews "The Life You Can Save" by Peter Singer

24 points by rglovejoy 18y ago

tigerthink 18y ago
http://lesswrong.com/lw/2k/the_least_convenient_possible_world/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/2k/the_least_convenient_possible_wor...
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
dbul 18y ago
This blog seems polemical in nature. I've read Singer's Practical Ethics, and he isn't trivializing the hunger issue inadvertently; it is on purpose. When there is a serious situation involving a split-second decision of whether someone lives or dies, you don't debate and argue. The argument is also condescending to those being helped as though they are just taking up resources and not capable of expressing their gratitude in the form of work after receiving nourishment.
- niels_olson 18y ago
  I read some Singer before doing pig vivesection as part of a surgery rotation in medical school. His general method seems to be to draw a bright intellectual line, and proceed to demonstrate just how bright it is. Like any bright line, one need only look around at the world for a moment to realize it is a convenient intellectual exercise. Great for publishing papers and books, not so useful in the trenches.
  - dbul 18y ago
    Replace "Singer" with "Gore" and I absolutely agree.
sho 18y ago
Greenspun is spot on with most of this, IMO. Singer might be a great ethicist, but he seems to have no concept of the simple rules of economics and industry. I respect his intentions, of course, but good intentions without good information are useless - worse than useless, even. A country that's short on food should have a powerful, built-in incentive to, you know, grow food. If the elites aren't letting that happen, there's a powerful incentive for the population to oppose them. If there's no economy, it gives incentive to create one. It might be painful for the West to watch as the wheels too-slowly start to turn, but turn they will, eventually. But in Singer's mind, it's "unethical" to watch this process, so he wants to interfere with foreign aid - removing all local incentives and basically putting an entire country on welfare. And because the whole mainstream society is in the same boat, there's no "social shame" incentives to get off welfare - it just becomes "food from God", or, worse, from the next best thing, the local dictator. Now the country's even worse off, really. They're addicted to foreign aid like Heroin. It might sound cold but incentives are the only proven way to make anyone do anything. Those incentives don't have to be money - I hope that one day we can get rid of money and work for the pride of recognition, or for some other reasons - but clearly for now, we need money or trade or whatever to motivate people. Take that away, flood a market with free food, and no-one is going to start a farm. Why should they? The incentives are gone. Worse, they've been perverted: better off to try and control the supply of the free food! It's not impossible, though. If we really do want to provide a baseline food diet for everyone in the world, and it certainly is a noble idea, then we just have to provide a baseline food buying program for everyone in the world, too. You can't buy from one market, strengthening their food industry, to dump on another, destroying theirs. But if you promise to buy from both and distribute a baseline to those in need - maybe it's possible. However, there is the small matter of that you'd be commencing a global experiment in command economy unprecedented in history ;)
- jibiki 18y ago
  Ok, let's see some numbers. What percentage of the African GDP comes from foreign aid? What percentage of Africa is fed by free food? The ability of both sides of this issue to avoid discussing numbers is nothing short of alarming. You make these blanket statements like "They're addicted to foreign aid like Heroin." Really? There's some good discussion on: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/another-call-to-end-aid-to-africa.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/another-call-to-end-ai... It's entirely possible to conclude that aid isn't helping Africa, but it's asinine to say that it's the primary cause for Africa's economic problems, unless you're willing to examine the numbers.

24 points by rglovejoy 18y ago

http://lesswrong.com/lw/2k/the_least_convenient_possible_world/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/2k/the_least_convenient_possible_wor...

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]

dbul 18y ago

This blog seems polemical in nature. I've read Singer's Practical Ethics, and he isn't trivializing the hunger issue inadvertently; it is on purpose. When there is a serious situation involving a split-second decision of whether someone lives or dies, you don't debate and argue. The argument is also condescending to those being helped as though they are just taking up resources and not capable of expressing their gratitude in the form of work after receiving nourishment.

niels_olson 18y ago
I read some Singer before doing pig vivesection as part of a surgery rotation in medical school. His general method seems to be to draw a bright intellectual line, and proceed to demonstrate just how bright it is. Like any bright line, one need only look around at the world for a moment to realize it is a convenient intellectual exercise. Great for publishing papers and books, not so useful in the trenches.
- dbul 18y ago
  Replace "Singer" with "Gore" and I absolutely agree.

sho 18y ago

Greenspun is spot on with most of this, IMO. Singer might be a great ethicist, but he seems to have no concept of the simple rules of economics and industry. I respect his intentions, of course, but good intentions without good information are useless - worse than useless, even. A country that's short on food should have a powerful, built-in incentive to, you know, grow food. If the elites aren't letting that happen, there's a powerful incentive for the population to oppose them. If there's no economy, it gives incentive to create one. It might be painful for the West to watch as the wheels too-slowly start to turn, but turn they will, eventually. But in Singer's mind, it's "unethical" to watch this process, so he wants to interfere with foreign aid - removing all local incentives and basically putting an entire country on welfare. And because the whole mainstream society is in the same boat, there's no "social shame" incentives to get off welfare - it just becomes "food from God", or, worse, from the next best thing, the local dictator. Now the country's even worse off, really. They're addicted to foreign aid like Heroin. It might sound cold but incentives are the only proven way to make anyone do anything. Those incentives don't have to be money - I hope that one day we can get rid of money and work for the pride of recognition, or for some other reasons - but clearly for now, we need money or trade or whatever to motivate people. Take that away, flood a market with free food, and no-one is going to start a farm. Why should they? The incentives are gone. Worse, they've been perverted: better off to try and control the supply of the free food! It's not impossible, though. If we really do want to provide a baseline food diet for everyone in the world, and it certainly is a noble idea, then we just have to provide a baseline food buying program for everyone in the world, too. You can't buy from one market, strengthening their food industry, to dump on another, destroying theirs. But if you promise to buy from both and distribute a baseline to those in need - maybe it's possible. However, there is the small matter of that you'd be commencing a global experiment in command economy unprecedented in history ;)

jibiki 18y ago
Ok, let's see some numbers. What percentage of the African GDP comes from foreign aid? What percentage of Africa is fed by free food? The ability of both sides of this issue to avoid discussing numbers is nothing short of alarming. You make these blanket statements like "They're addicted to foreign aid like Heroin." Really? There's some good discussion on: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/another-call-to-end-aid-to-africa.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/another-call-to-end-ai... It's entirely possible to conclude that aid isn't helping Africa, but it's asinine to say that it's the primary cause for Africa's economic problems, unless you're willing to examine the numbers.