Effective altruism is not effective

Post by lmm » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 5:51 AM UTC

morsch wrote: post #105

lmm wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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" wh…

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%. How do you know it's not doing more of the things that currently leave 5% without food?

Post by fighterpilot » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 5:53 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #48

vecplane wrote: post #4

This reads like a strawman perspective on the concept of 'effective altruism.' The 'effective' part in the term is doing a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to the definition. It seems reasonable to focus on actually 'effective' actions with good outcomes, rather than comparatively ineffective virtual signalling or martyrdom. Becoming rich and then helping millions of people with your means is more impactful tha…

> Becoming rich and then helping millions of people with your means is more impactful than being poor and helping dozens. It's also more self-serving for the better part of it (as your focus is to become rich), and might never reach the second part (actually becoming rich and helping others). It's also bogus: not many can become rich, both for reasons for circumstance making from much harder to nigh impossible for bi…

  "It's also bogus: not many can become rich"

Post by fighterpilot » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 6:00 AM UTC

morsch wrote: post #107

orangecat wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Political activism has such enormous potential For good and bad, and it's rarely obvious which policies are "correct". For example, it's possible for two entirely well-meaning people to come to opposite conclusions on issues like nuclear power or international trade. They could both spend their time and money trying to influence governments and end up with a net effect of zero (really negative after transaction costs…

Leaving the politics to the non-well-meaning people? I suppose this wouldn't change much if their influence were a net zero, too, but I don't believe it is.

Post by pjscott » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 6:13 AM UTC

chaseadam17 wrote: post #25

Effective altruism is a net positive, but it’s not a panacea. It suffers from the same problems as central planning and communism. Donors and nonprofits think they can calculate the most “effective” way to allocate funds — if only we can pack enough phds in this boardroom we’ll end poverty! Problem is, there’s no space in the room for the experts themselves — the ppl actually in poverty. Poverty is complex and no gro…

Post by medlyyy » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 6:16 AM UTC

benkuhn wrote: post #19

This article completely mischaracterizes the beliefs of most of the people quoted or referenced, then engages with those beliefs only via asserting the opposite without any supporting argument. I'm disappointed. For example: > The most charitable explanation of Singer’s dismissal of political action is that he is trying to sell being an altruist and he thinks a consumer -hero version is the one people are most likely…