Effective altruism is not effective • Hacker News Board

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#71

Post by hotstickyballs » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 1:16 AM UTC

gatlin wrote: post #68

I heard about EA from a person I respect, and so that really colored my perception of it because I think he, specifically, wouldn't do such a bad job. But having some time to think about it, that's really the problem with it: we have a need for altruism to begin with largely due to the concentration of resources (=> power) in the hands of a few to wield for everyone else. It's a cute example and certainly no substitu…

> it is purely a property rights issue that we can't connect more hungry mouths with more uneaten food. There's no R&D to be done, there's no unsolved problem with a bounty on it

Yes, it's a property rights issue.. and more. The problem is motivating those who are holding on to the food to distribute it to those who need it.

Clearly if those who need it are providing valuable service to food producers and distributors, there wouldn't be a problem.

The issue is really, how do we motivate the distribution of food (and other goods and services) to those who need it but can't justify to the producers and distributors and provide for it?

One solution is definitely charity. You pay the producers and distributors to distribute it to the needy. However, this quickly becomes a system that is easy to game. Often it's easier to convince the donor that work has been done instead of actually doing the work.

Another solution is government welfare, but it really comes down to the same problem - the objective becomes just convincing those asking for it.

The central issue is that those who need it but can't justify it are essentially powerless to motivate others to provide for them. IMHO the only reasonable way is to help these people become net producers in the economy or have more political power.

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#72

Post by mLuby » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 1:24 AM UTC

pcstl wrote: post #62

mLuby wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We start agitating and take down vital institutions in the name of change. Our movement gets hijacked by a military strongman who happens to be charismatic and liked by the people, and now we're under a brutal military dictatorship. This risk is inherent in any political action (or inaction), and it could happen just as easily with a citizenry of Effective Altruists as with a bunch of scrooges. Charity and authorit…

>This risk is inherent in any political action (or inaction) Is your premise here that all actions have the same risk of hijacking by a malicious player? I reject this premise. Solid institutions are usually an effective safeguard against this sort of thing, and radical political action tends to have as its goal to destabilize institutions.

Institutions, like laws, solidify existing power structures, whatever they may be. Though ideologically antipathetic toward each other, the bureaucracies of the U.S. Library of Congress and IngSoc's Ministry of Truth would be more similar than you might think.

I think we're disagreeing about the implied premise that trying to solve a charity problem (e.g. ending homelessness) necessitates radical political action, and therefore carries radical risk of regime change. I agree that radical political action carries a higher risk of regime change, but I don't agree that altrustic policies are remotely that radical. For example, I believe that solving homelessness wouldn't break the bank nor would it significantly affect our institutions or culture (except likely increasing somewhat the size and power of a few psych/medical and housing departments).

Glad we're both attuned to the risk of radical shake-ups though. :)

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#73

Post by BelmundoRegal » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 1:31 AM UTC

mdorazio wrote: post #12

The author has a good point about traditional donation-based altruism not always being the most effective in achieving the end goal of ending poverty. For example, dumping hundreds of tons of second-hand clothes in African countries has a huge negative impact on local textile industries [1]. So while you're helping clothe people short-term, you're depressing wage opportunities long-term. I believe (could be wrong) th…

"By lending as little as $25 on Kiva, you can be part of the solution and make a real difference in someone’s life. 100% of every dollar you lend on Kiva goes to funding loans."

"Kiva borrowers have a 96% repayment rate historically."

https://www.kiva.org/

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#74

Post by slibhb » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 1:42 AM UTC

Robotbeat wrote: post #64

slibhb wrote: post #41

For a more interesting critique of Effective Altruism and Peter Singer see: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2015/05/21/how-and-how-not-... Effective Altruism is a particularly base version of utilitarianism. It cheerfully accepts situations where you would be required to eat your grandmother or allow your child to starve in order to feed a village of people you've never met in another country. Peter Singer argues th…

> Do you believe the earth is overpopulated? If so, and if you cannot live in such a way as to offset the damage caused by your existence, effective altruism calls for suicide. I think that has a lot more to say about the belief the Earth is overpopulated (and the idea that living in a way to offset that damage is impossible) than EA. There are several pretty substantially misanthropic implications in this common bel…

Whether or not the earth is overpopulated (and I agree it's not), it is plausible that there are people who, no matter what they do, will increase net suffering. Peter Singer is pro-euthanasia of course. Personally, I'd pick a moral philosophy that forbids liquidating useless people but that's just me.

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#75

Post by tsm_sf » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 1:54 AM UTC

hotstickyballs wrote: post #71

gatlin wrote: post #68

I heard about EA from a person I respect, and so that really colored my perception of it because I think he, specifically, wouldn't do such a bad job. But having some time to think about it, that's really the problem with it: we have a need for altruism to begin with largely due to the concentration of resources (=> power) in the hands of a few to wield for everyone else. It's a cute example and certainly no substitu…

> it is purely a property rights issue that we can't connect more hungry mouths with more uneaten food. There's no R&D to be done, there's no unsolved problem with a bounty on it Yes, it's a property rights issue.. and more. The problem is motivating those who are holding on to the food to distribute it to those who need it. Clearly if those who need it are providing valuable service to food producers and distributor…

> The issue is really, how do we motivate the distribution of food (and other goods and services) to those who need it but can't justify to the producers and distributors and provide for it?

People shouldn't have to justify their existence based on some other group's favorite economic model. That seems weird and needlessly cruel.

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#76

Post by johnisgood » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 1:59 AM UTC

kiba wrote: post #13

The blog seems to assume a linear approach to progress. For example, if I donate 1,000 dollars to a person's yearly income. That person purchases capitals to make money or improve standard of living which leads to better fed children who can improve their own lives. It doesn't only touch that person's live, but the community around them. The community can do more now that certain goods are more available, or that the…

That may not be so, they may gamble it all away or use it for whatever else that you would call "throwing money out the window".

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#77

Post by skybrian » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 2:12 AM UTC

seoaeu wrote: post #66

skybrian wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but the problem is that you rarely know if political advocacy will work until after it succeeds, and even afterwards, it may take a while to study the impact of the change. GiveWell did study some political advocacy groups, but apparently it’s just hard to know what to recommend with confidence. There is a spin-off organization (Open Philanthropy) that uses funds from rich philanthropists to do more exp…

You don't need to know whether a specific advocacy effort will work, only to estimate whether the overall expected value is high enough. And we know that when advocacy succeeds it can have upsides many many times the cost put in (and there aren't that many advocacy movements) so there is at least some hint that the expected value is large. It feels kind of like a cop-out to say that you shouldn't pursue political cha…

Sure, you can guess at expected values, but what makes that guess interesting enough to share with others as a recommendation? Why would GiveWell's guesses about political causes be more interesting to read than anyone else's?

GiveWell's job is attempting to make predictions about fairly definite questions that can be answered by doing a lot of homework. They can learn a lot about charities and read scientific studies and make predictions that they can stand behind. It's figuring out what the safe choices are, not guessing at speculative winners.

But maybe a prediction market could do what you want?

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#78

Post by renewiltord » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 2:18 AM UTC

BelmundoRegal wrote: post #73

mdorazio wrote: post #12

The author has a good point about traditional donation-based altruism not always being the most effective in achieving the end goal of ending poverty. For example, dumping hundreds of tons of second-hand clothes in African countries has a huge negative impact on local textile industries [1]. So while you're helping clothe people short-term, you're depressing wage opportunities long-term. I believe (could be wrong) th…

"By lending as little as $25 on Kiva, you can be part of the solution and make a real difference in someone’s life. 100% of every dollar you lend on Kiva goes to funding loans." "Kiva borrowers have a 96% repayment rate historically." https://www.kiva.org/

I routinely give on Kiva but I feel bad knowing that the APRs actually offered are like 30%+ to the guys receiving the loans. Can the cost of administration be that severe?

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#79

Post by smitty1e » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 2:22 AM UTC

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #56

smitty1e wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I accept that your definition is a common one, but one of two attributes strike me as crucial for an unambiguously pure altruism: - total anonymity, or - ultimate sacrifice, as in the mother or warrior who lays it down for another. Anything less is open to the usual questions of motive. As with Dada, altruism doesn't survive intellectual evaluation.

> As with Dada, altruism doesn't survive intellectual evaluation. Sure and I'm not as interested in discussing the philosophical ideal of altruism. My interest in charitable work, as I suspect many interested in EA feel, stems from trying to do the greatest good with my limited allocation of resources, be that money, time, knowledge, manual labor, or otherwise. In that regard I'm unconcerned about the usual moral phi…

Sounds fine, practical and worthwhile, if not, well, you know...

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#80

Post by lmm » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 2:29 AM UTC

gatlin wrote: post #68

I heard about EA from a person I respect, and so that really colored my perception of it because I think he, specifically, wouldn't do such a bad job. But having some time to think about it, that's really the problem with it: we have a need for altruism to begin with largely due to the concentration of resources (=> power) in the hands of a few to wield for everyone else. It's a cute example and certainly no substitu…

> EA claims that doing more of the thing that causes these huge problems like hunger and homelessness will actually somehow cause less of it. And if you think I'm being reductive, fine, but I would ask that you point out what I'm reducing and why it shouldn't have been.

How is it "the thing", unless "the thing" is supposed to be, what, people using common sense? And how is it "the thing that causes these problems" when those problems are the natural state of being? People don't have food by default, people don't have housing by default, the huge amount of food being produced these days is in no way the state of nature. The argument of EA is closer to: doing more of the things that currently feed 95% of the world is the way to feed 100%.