Maybe this is superficial, but I was put off by the name "effective altruism". By naming it such, it felt like an implicit dig that most altruism is not effective. Like oh your altruism is not that productive, but my altruism, well it's effective altruism. Especially when that notion is pushed by people who overlap with the rationalist subculture, another arrogantly named group. In general I find it concerning when t…
I feel like real effective altruism is achieved by sites like charity navigator, which give you a sense of how well your donations to a given cause are spent by the organization.
The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?
81–90 of 619 posts
Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if only just to have some sort of open-system for rating charities While the following examples aren't exactly _open_ systems, some organizations address the niche you highlight. Examples: https://www.givewell.org/ , https://animalcharityevaluators.org/
I think _open_ is the important part: Would make sense if anyone could come up with the score, following some "standard". That way one could make sure that no specific grader has incentives to give good scores speculatively (or even maliciously).
Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?
#83What’s better than picking individual charities based on utility? Charity index funds. Also known as social democratic governments that collect taxes.
Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?
#84> “It really suited my character at the time to try to think about effectiveness and rigour in everyday life,” So was there any of that… that made getting into crypto or AI a good idea? What was the math there? I’ve seen effective altruism mentioned on HN before and I don’t really understand how it turns into directing people to jobs or specific tech… at all. I feel like if you’re trying to help people the moment you…
EA is best as as critique of the narcissism of most wealthy western ‘altruism’. But all this mixing of billionaires, crypto, and long-termism has reintroduced narcissism into the community.
Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?
#85Like most things: EA as a concept is fine. Finding the "maximal" way to improve the lives of others is great, and finding better ways to contribute than charity and volunteering is honorable. The issue is when people take it to the extreme (like someone who literally argued that a person doing mere charity or volunteer work is bad , because they are wasting time and effort that they could've spent making money and re…
Sorry, it is not a "fine" concept. It is just utilitarianism with modern marketing and pure utilitarianism has problems. See one example below where utilitarianism's suggestion goes against what almost everyone considers ethical: You can take 10 healthy organs from one person without any social connections and use the organs to save 10 terminal patients who would otherwise die. EA effectively sanctions robbing a mill…
Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?
#86Effective Altruism is bullshit and here is why; because, the invisible hand has already shown itself to be a far better lever of human good through the acceptance of human nature. "Helping people" implies you know what people need. It's a power position to begin with and thus designed to fulfill the doers goals of doing good not the receivers 'need' of being helped. Each of us, individually, pursuing our own self-int…
Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?
#87I've been convinced for sometime now that "effective altruism" (Lesswrong-ism? Yudkowskianism?) is the communism of the 21st century. Lots of parallels here beyond the obvious common thread of utilitarian collectivism: - Censorship: the concept of "infohazards" is super-popular https://nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/information-hazards - Social control + the creation of an 'othe…
Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?
#88Sounds like a bunch of sociopathic, terminally online people found each other and started yet another hierarchical fund raising scheme. What’s better than picking individual charities based on utility? Charity index funds. Also known as social democratic governments that collect taxes.
Well yes, but in the absence (or inadequacy) of such government action for causes you care about, doesn't it make sense to donate to the charities that most effectively do the thing you care about?
Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?
#89The more material argument is whether from an EA perspective running massive scams and funneling the proceeds to EA causes should be applauded or not. Obviously the fact that this discussion is even being surfaced will cause brand damage, but again it says nothing to which perspective is correct, just that these discussions are subject to optics-based constraints. It's like the open discussions in the rationalist community over whether various horrible civilizational collapses happening to humanity might actually be desirable because it will prevent (or at least delay) an AI from killing us. There's serious discussions but it never plays well to bring this to a "normie" audience. But pretty much every movement has its Straussian elements where the "insider" narratives contradict the "outsider" narratives.
Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?
#90Yes, by application only. Because the near-intuitive next step in thinking is that, heck, we can’t all be the comfortable one, someone has got to be the person getting their hands dirty incrementally adding to all of those QALY’s and clearly They’re too enlightened in understanding this to be the one living uncomfortably with dirty hands.
So the mathematical inevitability is there needs to be some gate keeping, and why shouldn’t it be the people who realized that also make the decisions about access?
Self serving, self reinforcing bullshit. Probably a mixture of honest good intentions and rationalizing of guilt for being better off than others.
The modern age makes it just about impossible to not be aware of a lot of awful crap in the world, so it’s no surprise that some of the current generation, finding themselves at or adjacent to the pinnacle of wealth and opportunity through some admixture of at least a little ability and a lot of good fortune and circumstance and some degree— large or small— of actual empathy, become plagued by the cognitive dissonance. By living so well but knowing that right this moment countless people are at the absolute opposite most desperate and miserable end of that spectrum, many soon to be dead, many dead just in the time it took me to type this.
Maybe I have it easier, cognitive dissonance wise, by virtue of having just a little of my formative years that 1) preceded a time when easy knowledge of the systemic awfulness of much of the world was unavoidable before a person hit a double-digit age and 2) Had a fair bit of personal awfulness in them as well. awfulness that was, in terms of the world wide range, still thankfully minor but enough that the dissonance is small.
So it’s no surprise that a somewhat cliquish group of the generation around the cultural/economic/academic centers of the world that, even just by virtue of their location, afford a great deal of opportunity have come up with a line of thinking that justifies their place in the world.
My hope is that an extra decade or two of experience and living and seeing how consequences play out slices off some critical mass of those folks who are a bit more self aware. At least enough to recognize that figuring out how to live your life as a decent person isn’t always going to be a problem that’s algorithmicaly or mathematically solvable.
Because I’d really prefer the next crop of people who find themselves in positions of wealth, power, and influence— again through some combination of (hopefully) a little merit and a lot of good fortune and circumstance… well, I’d prefer them to not be well intentioned but tragically arrogant assholes trying to figure out things like:
Is it better to suffer the inconvenience of saving the fleeing refugee on my doorstep? Or should I instead work an extra hour or two a month in order to earn a calculated incremental bonus in pay that might be donated to a cause that might be able to save 10 refugees?
I don’t want people in positions of power and influence to think that is, in any way, an interesting or worthwhile question to pursue as a mature intellectual use of their brain power rather than a shitty waste of time.