Effective altruism is not effective • Hacker News Board

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#161

Post by heavenlyblue » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 8:23 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #153

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…

Yeah, that article is pretty weird. To add on your last point: > > One could spend at most a few tens of millions of dollars on anti-mosquito bed nets before returns start dramatically diminishing because everyone who can be helped by them already has one. That's a feature . It's half of what makes "effective" part of "effective" altruism effective. The fact that charities aren't infinite money sinks allows everyone…

Effectiveness of charities has exactly the same problems as efficient market hypothesis: markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. Or in other words, charities can remain full of shit for longer than you have money for.

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#162

Post by chriswarbo » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 8:25 AM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #128

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…

> but does not himself provide an argument for it, just an assertion that political change is "the most obvious and powerful tool we have." (I think that's far from obvious!) Argentina, Venezuela and Zimbabwe are basically nations that destroyed themselves through bad political reforms. If there had been a way to prevent those reforms you could have prevented millions of people from slipping into poverty and needing…

One problem with politics is that it's adversarial: if a political cause has opponents, spending resources on that cause can turn into a war of attrition (e.g. the amount spent on US election campaigns)

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#163

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 8:33 AM UTC

heavenlyblue wrote: post #161

TeMPOraL wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that article is pretty weird. To add on your last point: > > One could spend at most a few tens of millions of dollars on anti-mosquito bed nets before returns start dramatically diminishing because everyone who can be helped by them already has one. That's a feature . It's half of what makes "effective" part of "effective" altruism effective. The fact that charities aren't infinite money sinks allows everyone…

Effectiveness of charities has exactly the same problems as efficient market hypothesis: markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. Or in other words, charities can remain full of shit for longer than you have money for.

Yes, and the same rules apply:

- Don't invest more than you can comfortably lose.

- Don't throw away the entire concept just because it's not perfect.

- Get better at telling who's full of shit, or delegate it to someone you trust.

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#164

Post by JulianMorrison » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 8:39 AM UTC

frashelaw wrote: post #134

JulianMorrison wrote: post #45

As a general principle, you're going to achieve at best, small, dystopia-blunting effects by effectively redistributing the resources of the not-rich. Gofundme healthcare will save a few people. Giving to panhandlers might keep them out of a killing freeze. What it won't do is make the dystopia go away. What you need to do that is politics.

Exactly. Ultimately these problems must be addressed on a greater societal level: by policy designed specifically to target them. Individual donation will only ever be a band aid. The funds required to alleviate hunger, poverty, etc., will come from redistributing the wealth of the super rich.

Or perhaps more accurately (because most of that "wealth" is ephemeral market nonsense) from redistributing their control of the world's resources.

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#165

Post by Rastonbury » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 8:40 AM UTC

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #50

mdorazio wrote: post #12

The author has a good point about traditional donation-based altruism not always being the most effective in achieving the end goal of ending poverty. For example, dumping hundreds of tons of second-hand clothes in African countries has a huge negative impact on local textile industries [1]. So while you're helping clothe people short-term, you're depressing wage opportunities long-term. I believe (could be wrong) th…

We should also stop requiring poor nations to follow intellectual property laws. If we didn’t make them pay high license fees for medications etc they wouldn’t be so destitute. Broadly speaking if local economies could develop producing and selling clones of important goods, they could grow their own economy more easily. Intellectual property restrictions are a completely human made notion that keeps the powerful wea…

Which particular medications are keeping these people destitute? Which producers of important goods in poor countries are enforcing IP restrictions? In practice, I don't think IP laws are keeping developing countries poor or harming their economic growth, causes of such issues are much more macro

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#166

Post by michaelt » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 8:42 AM UTC

dundarious wrote: post #30

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…

> Ord and MacAskill co-founded an organization, 80,000 Hours[1], which advocates mostly not for effective giving (which the author derides as a "consumer hero" approach) but rather for spending your career working on one of the world's most pressing problems; notably including for instance several types of policy change. That’s not a universally true statement about 80,000 hours. I took their career choice questionna…

> I took their career choice questionnaire and was told to work as a well paid Software Engineer and to donate a percentage of my income

The good thing about earning to give is it works no matter how niche your skill sets are.

What's an efficient way to deploy an expert microchip designer, when so few global poverty NGOs need microchips designed?

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#167

Post by k_bx » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 8:46 AM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #128

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…

> but does not himself provide an argument for it, just an assertion that political change is "the most obvious and powerful tool we have." (I think that's far from obvious!) Argentina, Venezuela and Zimbabwe are basically nations that destroyed themselves through bad political reforms. If there had been a way to prevent those reforms you could have prevented millions of people from slipping into poverty and needing…

Yes, but how much would such a reform cost and is it even possible with only money? Being effective means counting how much good you’re doing per one dollar.

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#168

Post by usgroup » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 8:49 AM UTC

> It is almost universally agreed that the persistence of extreme poverty in many parts of the world is a bad thing. It is less well-agreed, even among philosophers, what should be done about it and by who.

Not even the philosophers agree?! This must be a serious article...

Pass.

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#169

Post by michaelt » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 9:04 AM UTC

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #58

monktastic1 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the "effective" part means more than just that. From their site: > It is a research field which uses high-quality evidence and careful reasoning to work out how to help others as much as possible. This assumes that reasoning and evidence are sufficient to determine what will be most effective. Compare this to the Buddhists, for example, who believe that the networks of causality are so complex and intricate that…

This is a common philosophical problem. EA fits in a philosophical framework broadly known as utilitarianism (which is also popular among rationalists, a group known to be fans of EA). Buddhism's ideas of moral philosophy often lie in a mixture of what is commonly known as Divine Will Ethics and Virtue Ethics. Utilitarianism is quite popular among modern STEM discourse, but there are moral alternatives out there that…

> (e.g., in the trolley problem, what happens if you save the 3 people over the 1 person, but one of those 3 people ends up becoming (or is) a dictator who orchestrates a genocide.)

Presumably by this logic, you'd have no opinion on whether a midwife should save a newborn baby's life, as it's unknowable whether the baby will one day orchestrate a genocide?

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#170

Post by wizzwizz4 » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 9:04 AM UTC

heavenlyblue wrote: post #161

TeMPOraL wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that article is pretty weird. To add on your last point: > > One could spend at most a few tens of millions of dollars on anti-mosquito bed nets before returns start dramatically diminishing because everyone who can be helped by them already has one. That's a feature . It's half of what makes "effective" part of "effective" altruism effective. The fact that charities aren't infinite money sinks allows everyone…

Effectiveness of charities has exactly the same problems as efficient market hypothesis: markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. Or in other words, charities can remain full of shit for longer than you have money for.

That's why we have charity evaluators like GiveWell. https://www.givewell.org/