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

31–40 of 42 posts

Re: In continued defense of effective altruism

#31

Post by henryaj »

yboris wrote: post #20
henryaj wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Agreed - Bentham is a hero.

Re: In continued defense of effective altruism

#32

Post by Joeboy »

photochemsyn wrote: post #27
Joeboy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As per the other replies, you've seriously misunderstood some fundamentals about EA. But aside from that: > The better solution is to (1) increase tax rates on the wealthiest sectors of the economy by restoring 1960s-era tax brackets for income, corporate, and capital gains and (2) change how those funds are spent at the federal and state level, i.e. move away from funding foreign wars and towards fixing all the basi…

Malaria is a good example. It used to be endemic in the southeastern United States but was eradicated within a couple of decades - not by billionaire philanthropy, but by a robust government-managed public health effort: > "Malaria affected 30 percent of the population in the region when the TVA was incorporated in 1933. The Public Health Service played a vital role in the research and control operations and by 1947,…

How will it help if people stop donating to the Against Malaria Foundation? It seems to me that'll cost a lot of lives and not benefit public health infrastructure one jot.

Re: In continued defense of effective altruism

#33

Post by Munksgaard »

Jonnston wrote: post #4

As an idea, and an ideal, it's hard to seriously criticize EA. Sone pretty shady people have done really unethical things while claiming it as a rationale, but I don't understand how that's supposed to convince me that "most good for the least cost" should be anything other than a North star for moral action.

Utilitarianism is not the only moral framework.

Re: In continued defense of effective altruism

#34

Post by yorwba »

UncleMeat wrote: post #25
Arnt wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Right that's the argument. I just think that people who say that are using a wildly incorrect function for altruistic efficiency.

And who are those people who say that?

Re: In continued defense of effective altruism

#35

Post by chaseadam17 »

henryaj wrote: post #29
chaseadam17 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Nonprofits have a principal agent problem — they are funded by donors, not the people they serve. As a result, they are incentivized to find ways to give a non financial ROI to donors in order to keep the money coming (eg galas, name a building, focus on the donor’s pet project, etc) instead of serving the interests of the people they are supposed to help. This dynamic — which is similar to politicians servi…

> The single thing missing from 99% of philanthropy conversations after all these years is STILL the voices of the people we’re all trying to help Not so! Popular EA charity GiveDirectly does exactly what you're suggesting - giving money directly to people in extreme poverty through direct cash transfers.

I love GiveDirectly. If all of EA was simply advocating for unconditional cash transfers, I’d be a fan. But on the whole, it’s far from that. Cash is no longer cool, now it’s AI and existential risk, tomorrow it’ll be something else.

Re: In continued defense of effective altruism

#36

Post by kdmccormick »

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…

Hi, I'm pro-EA and also in favor of significantly higher taxes, higher infra spending, medicare for all, UBI, and changes to corporate law that would lessen the power that multinational corporations have over developing countries. A lot of EAs feel that way, perhaps most.

I can't singlehandedly change the US tax code, budget, and foreign policy. But I can donate a chunk of my income, and I can participate in online communties which debate the most effective way to spend those donations. So I do, and EA has made it easy for me to do that.

How does that square with your made-up history about billionaire philanthropy? What do you do to make the world a better place?

Re: In continued defense of effective altruism

#38

Post by photochemsyn »

kdmccormick wrote: post #36
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…

Hi, I'm pro-EA and also in favor of significantly higher taxes, higher infra spending, medicare for all, UBI, and changes to corporate law that would lessen the power that multinational corporations have over developing countries. A lot of EAs feel that way, perhaps most. I can't singlehandedly change the US tax code, budget, and foreign policy. But I can donate a chunk of my income, and I can participate in online c…

"What do you do to make the world a better place?"

Work to limit the scope and reach of US intellectual property law?

(The world is a rather complex place, but patents have been doing more to limit technological progress such as access to clean water than to stimulate it.)

And that's not 'made-up history' either, look up Ford Foundation South Africa CIA for example.

Re: In continued defense of effective altruism

#39

Post by kdmccormick »

photochemsyn wrote: post #38
kdmccormick wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, I'm pro-EA and also in favor of significantly higher taxes, higher infra spending, medicare for all, UBI, and changes to corporate law that would lessen the power that multinational corporations have over developing countries. A lot of EAs feel that way, perhaps most. I can't singlehandedly change the US tax code, budget, and foreign policy. But I can donate a chunk of my income, and I can participate in online c…

"What do you do to make the world a better place?" Work to limit the scope and reach of US intellectual property law? (The world is a rather complex place, but patents have been doing more to limit technological progress such as access to clean water than to stimulate it.) And that's not 'made-up history' either, look up Ford Foundation South Africa CIA for example.

> Work to limit the scope and reach of US intellectual property law?

Very cool. I don't doubt that it's impactful work.

I still think you're way off base with your views on EA :)

Re: In continued defense of effective altruism

#40

Post by paulolc »

Arnt wrote: post #24
paulolc wrote: post #23

Effective Altruism is a bad idea. Applying money in a way that does the most good possible is focusing/obsessing too much on one angle. A Local Maximum will be reached without mechanisms to get out of it.

You state without argument that effective altrusts optimise for one angle and disregard all other angles. Can you show some examples of this?

Sure. The one angle I am talking about is focusing on maximizing the application of money on the _things that do the most good possible_. There may be cases where financing something that will certainly not do the most good possible, on the contrary, it may cause havoc, suffering, death and destruction, like war, is the best course of action. Sacrifice sometimes is needed. Effective Altruism already proved to be a failed idea. It inspired smart and good people to justify any means for and end, just because they thought the end was ultimately good and honest (I believe that SBF was aware of the illegality of what he was doing but it was ok because it was for a good cause). EA is a virtue signalling and a god complex pit.

Of course, no one is against maximizing resources to where they are needed the most. That it should be an evidence based approach and focused on systemic change and long term solutions, rather than just alleviating symptoms. Yes, but this is just common sense. Now, naming it Altruism and adding Effective on top is just creating a banner for another Crusade like endeavor. Throw your money at us and you will be saved and your sins forgiven.

Post reply on HN