31–40 of 128 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Come on you guys, knock it off.
Quoted post unavailable.
Can you please use the site as intended? It's only worth anything if it's interesting, and vandalizing it is just a way to destroy it for everybody. I'm sure you don't leave campfires burning in dry forests or toss your trash on the street. Why do the equivalent here?
Provide education, jobs and contraceptives to those with high reproduction rates —pop growth will slow thus putting less pressure on the environment (see China vs India). Less encroachment on nature, less sequestered carbon released. Help to modernize poor countries' energy grids and electrify the hinterlands. Get people in rich countries to give up cheap disposable stuff and give up energy consuming entertainment (i…
The first paragraph is all you need. Instances of consumerism that are a problem can be dampened through tax or other means, but it's a moot point because environmental encroachment scales with demand. If demand is stagnant (because the population is, and has already been lifted out of poverty enough to demand things), then there's no question of sustainability for basically anything, except certain finite resources.…
But talking about inequalities, especially related to political systems and redistribution, we should be taking a closer look at power because this is, always, ultimately, the real thing.
Money can be kind of boring when you have too much of it, power has a longer lasting appeal, and for some people, the appetite is bottomless.
I tend to be wary of power-hungry types.
Also, contrary to wealth, power is a zero sum game, and the size of the pie is directly defined by the demography.
Am I the only one growing suspicious of this since the SBF/FTX effective altruism turned out to be a front to masquerade a good old Ponzi? I don't think the Gates foundation is a Ponzi, but I am not entirely convinced that all of this is really what is advertised. Are there any reliable (external and independent) audits for charities?
Am I the only one growing suspicious of this since the SBF/FTX effective altruism turned out to be a front to masquerade a good old Ponzi? I don't think the Gates foundation is a Ponzi, but I am not entirely convinced that all of this is really what is advertised. Are there any reliable (external and independent) audits for charities?
Am I the only one growing suspicious of this since the SBF/FTX effective altruism turned out to be a front to masquerade a good old Ponzi? I don't think the Gates foundation is a Ponzi, but I am not entirely convinced that all of this is really what is advertised. Are there any reliable (external and independent) audits for charities?
Since you're skeptical of effective altruism, Givewell probably isn't going garner a lot of trust for you which is unfortunate because they really do some of the best work in the field for trying to understand the effectiveness of charities (e.g. on a cost/daly basis). Charity Navigator was founded with an idea of kind of providing independent audits but to me it's more like a Yelp for charities and not super useful.
Am I the only one growing suspicious of this since the SBF/FTX effective altruism turned out to be a front to masquerade a good old Ponzi? I don't think the Gates foundation is a Ponzi, but I am not entirely convinced that all of this is really what is advertised. Are there any reliable (external and independent) audits for charities?
Sorta depends what you think is advertised. AFAICT what's advertised is that Bill Gates gives away his money to create the kind of world and society Bill Gates wants to live in. I don't really see why I should want to live according to Bill Gates' ideas or preferences, so I'm critical on that ground -- but that doesn't make it a scam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
I'm defending Hacker News, it's really just that simple. Can you please use the site as intended? It's only worth anything if it's interesting, and vandalizing it is just a way to destroy it for everybody. I'm sure you don't leave campfires burning in dry forests or toss your trash on the street. Why do the equivalent here? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The allowance of certain subjects to be discussed, combined with some of the moderation policies ostensibly designed to quell flamewars, have given a certain segment of the population a license to think they can act like this.
You bring the hammer down just as hard on people also trying to defend HN. And since those people want to play within the rules, those who don't essentially take over. Because they have the time to do so.
And they all fit a certain mold.
Am I the only one growing suspicious of this since the SBF/FTX effective altruism turned out to be a front to masquerade a good old Ponzi? I don't think the Gates foundation is a Ponzi, but I am not entirely convinced that all of this is really what is advertised. Are there any reliable (external and independent) audits for charities?
Provide education, jobs and contraceptives to those with high reproduction rates —pop growth will slow thus putting less pressure on the environment (see China vs India). Less encroachment on nature, less sequestered carbon released. Help to modernize poor countries' energy grids and electrify the hinterlands. Get people in rich countries to give up cheap disposable stuff and give up energy consuming entertainment (i…
This we should not do. First, Malthusians have always been wrong and I claim will continue to be wrong. Second, contraception encourages declining birth rates and low birth rates are destructive to societies. Third, contraception is intrinsically immoral because it frustrates and perverts the function of the sexual faculties (it's the analogue of bulimia). Fourth, contraception has the psychological effect of divorcing the intrinsic function of sexual intercourse from pleasure which results in a hedonistic view of sex, the objectification of people, and exploitative attitudes, among others. Not exactly a winning recipe for a healthy society. I would also emphasize the distinction between promotion and permissiveness; I am arguing against promotion only and a culture that normalizes its use as opposed to one that merely tolerates it.
> (see China vs India)
China is below replacement (1.70). India is at replacement (2.18). Fertility rates are low everywhere except Africa. I think Africa has had enough of philanthropic "interventions".
> Practice secular (or religious) asceticism and be comfortable with that.
You don't need to be ascetic. You just need to avoid prodigality and the consumerist vice of excessive acquisitiveness. Where clothing is concerned, prefer high quality, classic styles that last, even when they cost more upfront. Don't live beyond your means. Don't buy stuff you don't need or doesn't contribute real value to your life. Don't buy impulsively (unless you want to fill your garage with garbage). All these are just common sense.