Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In continued defense of effective altruism

astralcodexten.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 42 posts

Re: In continued defense of effective altruism

#11

Post by catchnear4321 »

williamcotton wrote: post #5
catchnear4321 wrote: post #3

effective altruists are neither. all the movement does is attempt to distort reality to the childlike views of the wealthy. yes, ea practitioners think they are better than everyone else. that’s why all the haters are wrong.

I'm curious, have you ever gone to any EA meetups or interacted with these people in person, or is all of this just based on a certain pattern of blinking pixels on one of your devices?

come now, ray tubes are more fun. pixels? pshaw. and you wonder why people distrust the aims of ea types.

yes, in person interaction, but beyond that is none of your business. of course this will be unsatisfactory, but satisfaction isn’t the goal, is it?

since we are trading info, when did you become one?

Re: In continued defense of effective altruism

#12

Post by chadbr »

syndicatedjelly wrote: post #6

Effective altruism is the result of not teaching STEM majors enough classics and philosophy. These tech nerds have "invented" utilitarianism, a philosophy that goes back thousands of years and has known downsides when taken to the extreme (i.e. ignoring personal liberties and the means of doing things). The ends don't always justify the means.

socialism fueled by capitalism… the irony is so good.

In the 60’s/70’s it would have been called a cult.

Re: In continued defense of effective altruism

#13

Post by adamgordonbell »

photochemsyn wrote: post #9

The problem with billionaire philanthropy (which is what the term 'effective altruism' was intended to replace as part of a rebranding effort) is that it tends to be self-serving and opaque. E.g. we don't want secretive private 'do-gooder' foundations running global public health programs because they're always incentivized to deliver their funds to the private investment interests of the billionaires in charge, rath…

citation needed

I thought EA was people buying malaria nets while quoting Scott Alexander and reading the sequences.

Re: In continued defense of effective altruism

#14

Post by woooooo »

syndicatedjelly wrote: post #6

Effective altruism is the result of not teaching STEM majors enough classics and philosophy. These tech nerds have "invented" utilitarianism, a philosophy that goes back thousands of years and has known downsides when taken to the extreme (i.e. ignoring personal liberties and the means of doing things). The ends don't always justify the means.

There's a long history of people saying this about Scott Alexander in particular.

Whenever I speak to them, they've clearly never actually read the 10 page essay they're complaining about. Makes me wonder if they actually read any philosophy either.

Re: In continued defense of effective altruism

#15

Post by williamcotton »

catchnear4321 wrote: post #11
williamcotton wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious, have you ever gone to any EA meetups or interacted with these people in person, or is all of this just based on a certain pattern of blinking pixels on one of your devices?

come now, ray tubes are more fun. pixels? pshaw. and you wonder why people distrust the aims of ea types. yes, in person interaction, but beyond that is none of your business. of course this will be unsatisfactory, but satisfaction isn’t the goal, is it? since we are trading info, when did you become one?

See my other comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38459320

Re: In continued defense of effective altruism

#16

Post by catchnear4321 »

williamcotton wrote: post #15
catchnear4321 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

come now, ray tubes are more fun. pixels? pshaw. and you wonder why people distrust the aims of ea types. yes, in person interaction, but beyond that is none of your business. of course this will be unsatisfactory, but satisfaction isn’t the goal, is it? since we are trading info, when did you become one?

See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38459320

[flagged]

Re: In continued defense of effective altruism

#17

Post by yboris »

syndicatedjelly wrote: post #6

Effective altruism is the result of not teaching STEM majors enough classics and philosophy. These tech nerds have "invented" utilitarianism, a philosophy that goes back thousands of years and has known downsides when taken to the extreme (i.e. ignoring personal liberties and the means of doing things). The ends don't always justify the means.

If anyone is interested in Utilitarianism, consider this open-access textbook: https://www.utilitarianism.net/

Re: In continued defense of effective altruism

#18

Post by yboris »

photochemsyn wrote: post #9

The problem with billionaire philanthropy (which is what the term 'effective altruism' was intended to replace as part of a rebranding effort) is that it tends to be self-serving and opaque. E.g. we don't want secretive private 'do-gooder' foundations running global public health programs because they're always incentivized to deliver their funds to the private investment interests of the billionaires in charge, rath…

Your first sentence betrays lack of familiarity with EA. It is offensive to me that you state it as fact.

EA started as a continuation of Peter Singer's argument in "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" (1972), as a progression after the founding of Giving What We Can (thousands of people giving at least 10% of their pre-tax income to cost-effective charities).

Have you ever read about it here? https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-e...

Re: In continued defense of effective altruism

#19

Post by Arnt »

UncleMeat wrote: post #7

I think that this is a bait and switch here. I'm not aware of any significant and serious criticism of the "give lots of money to malaria net organizations" approach to Effective Altruism. This also doesn't seem to be especially present in the article. I'm sure that you can find individual examples on twitter or whatever, but from my seat that seems to be a clear minority of the criticism. It is the version of Effect…

AIUI the EA argument would be "focusing on EA safety is among the most effective usee of our resources" and "flying to Mars is among the most effective uses of our resources". I can see how the former might be viewed as a cost-effective way to improve the world, even if I personally haven't even tried to consider the matter.

The latter, not so much. Can you point to an effective altruist who argues that that's likely effective? I don't mean someone who says effective altrusts think so (and are stupid to think so), I mean someone who is an effective altruist and says so.

Re: In continued defense of effective altruism

#20

Post by yboris »

henryaj wrote: post #10
syndicatedjelly wrote: post #6

Effective altruism is the result of not teaching STEM majors enough classics and philosophy. These tech nerds have "invented" utilitarianism, a philosophy that goes back thousands of years and has known downsides when taken to the extreme (i.e. ignoring personal liberties and the means of doing things). The ends don't always justify the means.

If they've invented utilitarianism, why do they use that exact term so often? Seems like EAs are actually pretty familiar with the history of utilitarian thought. Much EA discourse focuses on moral philosophy and meta-ethics. Will MacAskill, well-known EA, is a professor of moral philosophy. Deontology has its problems too.

It's worth to look at the track record of utilitarianism:

Jeremy Bentham, often regarded as the founder of classical utilitarianism, almost 300 years ago, was arguing in favor of women's rights, decriminalization of homosexuality, abolition of slavery, animal welfare, prison reform.

https://www.utilitarianism.net/utilitarian-thinker/jeremy-be...

Post reply on HN