3 ms·

I agree with you on "natural" but rational? It seems focusing on nearby problems in the modern world is only rational if you are acting out of selfishness. If y

I agree with you on "natural" but rational? It seems focusing on nearby problems in the modern world is only rational if you are acting out of selfishness. If you are acting from altruism (and also believe that all humans are of equal value), you would pursue the strategies that have the most leverage.

venomsnake 13y ago
Not at all. You should help where you could do the most. In US it is the US poor - because you have common language, you know the rules, you have the connections and resources etc etc ... India - there is different country, different culture, different customs. We cannot solve the problems of the people by not knowing them in depth and that is major investment. We cannot offer one size fits all "learn to code" solution that earned the tech industry the recent mocking.
rayiner 13y ago
In the sense of a rational actor that maximizes their own utility.
- mortehu 13y ago
  I figure you could be living on the other side of 12th Street and be largely unaffected by this. I think you're assuming too much about people's innate preferences. You can slice the world to arbitrarily small groups of people, making any problem someone else's. I don't feel the national borders are particularly meaningful in this context, especially considering the amount of Indians living in Silicon Valley.
  - dylangs1030 13y ago
    You're misinterpreting Rayiner's point, and debating this in the wrong way. You're speaking from an ethical perspective, but Rayiner is not. He's making a point about logical sphere of influence - it's not cold and uncaring towards distant suffering, just not prioritized. I'm sure Rayiner feels deep sympathy for places that are not presently near to him (such as India, in this thread). If every major problem in the United States were already solved, it would be more reasonable to then try to help others solve their problems. But that's not the case. If you have people suffering right in front of you, it just makes sense logistically to help them first. Helping our own homeless and unemployed would aid in stimulating the American economy. The bottom line is that there isn't any sane reason why an American would prioritize the needs of another country before his own. Nor would it be sane for an Indian to prioritize America's while she lives in India. It just doesn't make sense. You tend to your side of the street first.
    - mortehu 13y ago
      > If every major problem in the United States were already solved, it would be more reasonable to then try to help others solve their problems. > If you have people suffering right in front of you, it just makes sense logistically to help them first. > there isn't any sane reason why an American would prioritize the needs of another country before his own You're making several statements basically asserting that proximity is the only relevant factor when determining how easy it is to help one person or grow an economy. But we're not all paramedics. I'd argue that the American economy has already grown so much, and people are already given so many opportunities here, that making improvements here is going to be way more expensive in terms of natural resources and manpower, than improving an area where much simpler problems are still unsolved. For example, spending $1M fighting malaria in Africa improves the GDP of Africa by $12M.[1] > Helping our own homeless and unemployed would aid in stimulating the American economy. This seems to be evidence of national bias. Why should I care about the American economy in particular? 1. http://www.rbm.who.int/cmc_upload/0/000/015/330/415680a_r.pdf http://www.rbm.who.int/cmc_upload/0/000/015/330/415680a_r.pd...
- pjscott 13y ago
  Is that because you care more about the people nearer to you, or because it's easier to help them? (Personally, I'd answer 'yes' and 'probably not', respectively. If you want to help people in bulk, you can probably get easier targets if you're willing to look in some of the poorer countries in the world. GiveWell's charity evaluations seem to confirm this: http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities)

venomsnake 13y ago

Not at all. You should help where you could do the most. In US it is the US poor - because you have common language, you know the rules, you have the connections and resources etc etc ... India - there is different country, different culture, different customs. We cannot solve the problems of the people by not knowing them in depth and that is major investment. We cannot offer one size fits all "learn to code" solution that earned the tech industry the recent mocking.

rayiner 13y ago

In the sense of a rational actor that maximizes their own utility.

mortehu 13y ago
I figure you could be living on the other side of 12th Street and be largely unaffected by this. I think you're assuming too much about people's innate preferences. You can slice the world to arbitrarily small groups of people, making any problem someone else's. I don't feel the national borders are particularly meaningful in this context, especially considering the amount of Indians living in Silicon Valley.
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  You're misinterpreting Rayiner's point, and debating this in the wrong way. You're speaking from an ethical perspective, but Rayiner is not. He's making a point about logical sphere of influence - it's not cold and uncaring towards distant suffering, just not prioritized. I'm sure Rayiner feels deep sympathy for places that are not presently near to him (such as India, in this thread). If every major problem in the United States were already solved, it would be more reasonable to then try to help others solve their problems. But that's not the case. If you have people suffering right in front of you, it just makes sense logistically to help them first. Helping our own homeless and unemployed would aid in stimulating the American economy. The bottom line is that there isn't any sane reason why an American would prioritize the needs of another country before his own. Nor would it be sane for an Indian to prioritize America's while she lives in India. It just doesn't make sense. You tend to your side of the street first.
  - mortehu 13y ago
    > If every major problem in the United States were already solved, it would be more reasonable to then try to help others solve their problems. > If you have people suffering right in front of you, it just makes sense logistically to help them first. > there isn't any sane reason why an American would prioritize the needs of another country before his own You're making several statements basically asserting that proximity is the only relevant factor when determining how easy it is to help one person or grow an economy. But we're not all paramedics. I'd argue that the American economy has already grown so much, and people are already given so many opportunities here, that making improvements here is going to be way more expensive in terms of natural resources and manpower, than improving an area where much simpler problems are still unsolved. For example, spending $1M fighting malaria in Africa improves the GDP of Africa by $12M.[1] > Helping our own homeless and unemployed would aid in stimulating the American economy. This seems to be evidence of national bias. Why should I care about the American economy in particular? 1. http://www.rbm.who.int/cmc_upload/0/000/015/330/415680a_r.pdf http://www.rbm.who.int/cmc_upload/0/000/015/330/415680a_r.pd...
pjscott 13y ago
Is that because you care more about the people nearer to you, or because it's easier to help them? (Personally, I'd answer 'yes' and 'probably not', respectively. If you want to help people in bulk, you can probably get easier targets if you're willing to look in some of the poorer countries in the world. GiveWell's charity evaluations seem to confirm this: http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities)