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

Batman's Real Story

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 57 posts

Re: Batman's Real Story

#21

Post by philh »

bad_user wrote: post #20
philh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not having perfect information is not an excuse to ignore the information you have. I don't know exactly how different the world would be if he donated $250,000 to, say, combating malaria instead of building a better Batmobile. But I would give at least 10:1 odds (if such a bet could be judged) that it would have more people alive in 20 years, for example. But saving many lives thousands of miles away doesn't feel as…

But I would give at least 10:1 odds (if such a bet could be judged) that it would have more people alive in 20 years, for example. There are 2 problems with this statement: (1) many people sick with cancer or malaria are going to die anyway and bringing a little happiness into their lives is worth the trouble, even if those people won't count towards your "alive" statistics. "Making the world a better place" is not n…

1) True. Still, I think I would choose the "malaria" world over the "batmobile" world; and the "malaria" world is probably not optimal.

(Remember, he already has a Batmobile. In the "malaria" world I'm assuming he keeps using it.)

2) Research isn't the only thing money can buy. I was thinking mosquito nets. And again, that's probably not optimal.

Re: Batman's Real Story

#22

Post by Eliezer »

philh wrote: post #19
scintill76 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's impossible to find the "maximally efficient, effective ways", so you should do the interesting ones (i.e., not everyone is doing) that enrich you and make you happy, and have a measurable positive effect on others, like this guy does. With him being well-off, would it be more "maximally efficient" for him to do something else with his money? Maybe, but he wouldn't be making people happy with his black Lamb…

Not having perfect information is not an excuse to ignore the information you have. I don't know exactly how different the world would be if he donated $250,000 to, say, combating malaria instead of building a better Batmobile. But I would give at least 10:1 odds (if such a bet could be judged) that it would have more people alive in 20 years, for example. But saving many lives thousands of miles away doesn't feel as…

MBlume is right, of course, but I have to ask - Philh, have you donated to any efficient charities / optimal philanthropies?

Re: Batman's Real Story

#23

Post by joelrunyon »

philh wrote: post #21
bad_user wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I would give at least 10:1 odds (if such a bet could be judged) that it would have more people alive in 20 years, for example. There are 2 problems with this statement: (1) many people sick with cancer or malaria are going to die anyway and bringing a little happiness into their lives is worth the trouble, even if those people won't count towards your "alive" statistics. "Making the world a better place" is not n…

1) True. Still, I think I would choose the "malaria" world over the "batmobile" world; and the "malaria" world is probably not optimal. (Remember, he already has a Batmobile. In the "malaria" world I'm assuming he keeps using it.) 2) Research isn't the only thing money can buy. I was thinking mosquito nets. And again, that's probably not optimal.

I think this might be a case of doing something rather than hyperanalyzing every possible situation and doing nothing.

Might not be ideal, but at least he's doing something.

Re: Batman's Real Story

#25

Post by napoleoncomplex »

philh wrote: post #19
scintill76 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's impossible to find the "maximally efficient, effective ways", so you should do the interesting ones (i.e., not everyone is doing) that enrich you and make you happy, and have a measurable positive effect on others, like this guy does. With him being well-off, would it be more "maximally efficient" for him to do something else with his money? Maybe, but he wouldn't be making people happy with his black Lamb…

Not having perfect information is not an excuse to ignore the information you have. I don't know exactly how different the world would be if he donated $250,000 to, say, combating malaria instead of building a better Batmobile. But I would give at least 10:1 odds (if such a bet could be judged) that it would have more people alive in 20 years, for example. But saving many lives thousands of miles away doesn't feel as…

Slightly off-topic, but your post reminded me of Slavoj Zizek's fiery verbal attack on charity[1], especially the line at the very end:

"It's horrible to see a child whose life is ruined because of an operation that costs 20$. .. (but) If you operate the child, they will live a little bit better, but in the same situation that produced them"

Just an interesting side-note on this debate.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g

Re: Batman's Real Story

#26

Post by jonnathanson »

philh wrote: post #19
scintill76 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's impossible to find the "maximally efficient, effective ways", so you should do the interesting ones (i.e., not everyone is doing) that enrich you and make you happy, and have a measurable positive effect on others, like this guy does. With him being well-off, would it be more "maximally efficient" for him to do something else with his money? Maybe, but he wouldn't be making people happy with his black Lamb…

Not having perfect information is not an excuse to ignore the information you have. I don't know exactly how different the world would be if he donated $250,000 to, say, combating malaria instead of building a better Batmobile. But I would give at least 10:1 odds (if such a bet could be judged) that it would have more people alive in 20 years, for example. But saving many lives thousands of miles away doesn't feel as…

"making sick children happy"

This is a pretty reductionist view of his activities, IMO. Keeping cancer patients "happy," especially young children, is a huge part of their recovery. People like to speak in broad, fuzzy terms about the power of "smiles" and all that, but there's plenty of clinical research showing the significance of attitude on the workings of the body's response to disease. (And, even if the smiles had no effect whatsoever, it's still a noble cause to provide comfort to the sick and dying).

"...if his objective is to do as much good for the world as he can, he's not acheiving it."

But who said this was his objective? This is merely conjecture by a handful of HN commenters. Batman himself has neither stated, nor implied, that he's seeking to maximize utility of his efforts.

Even still, there's a very credible argument to be made in his defense against this charge.

Sure, he may not be maximizing his direct impact. But I imagine that the novelty of his approach, coupled with the publicity he's received, will have a large, indirect effect. Maybe more "Batmen" will answer the call of duty. Maybe more people will open up their hearts and wallets this week. Etc. It's highly likely that the sum total of his direct + indirect impact on the world is greater here than if he'd simply min/maxed the direct impact (e.g., by donation to X causes in Y locations).

He's now got symbolic value, as does the $250,000 Batmobile, and it's hard to measure the impact of that value. But it's certainly nontrivial.

As Ra's al-Ghul taught Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins, the goal is to "become an idea." That way, what you stand for becomes far bigger than what you, alone, can achieve. You leverage your personal impact on the world. It's a lesson that this version of Batman seems to have learned well.

Re: Batman's Real Story

#27

Post by officemonkey »

chaostheory wrote: post #10

Bruce Wayne, "People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy and I can't do that as Bruce Wayne, as a man I'm flesh and blood I can be ignored I can be destroyed but as a symbol, as a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting."

"Cancer cells are a superstitious cowardly lot, so my disguise must be able to strike terror into their hearts. I must be a creature of the night, black, terrible..."

Re: Batman's Real Story

#28

Post by ma2rten »

MBlume wrote: post #13
aresant wrote: post #3

At first glance weird story for HN. But figuring out interesting ways to give back should be in the future of every successful entrepreneur, and never to early to get started.

Interesting ways to give back should not really be a desideratum. Look for maximally efficient, effective ways of giving back.

I did a minor in international development studies. One of the things that I took away from there was that the problems of so-called developing countries (and poor people in rich countries as well) are very complex. There have been numerous well intended, philanthropic projects in past, which actually did more harm than good. Really determining what the most effective way to spend your money is, would require years of study.

There are consultants you can hire to help determine this for you. That said, the influence (be it good or bad) you could have with a couple million dollar is so minuscule, that you might as well measure the benefit of it in terms of emotional value, instead of any "objective" measure.

Re: Batman's Real Story

#29

Post by Lockyy »

philh wrote: post #21
bad_user wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I would give at least 10:1 odds (if such a bet could be judged) that it would have more people alive in 20 years, for example. There are 2 problems with this statement: (1) many people sick with cancer or malaria are going to die anyway and bringing a little happiness into their lives is worth the trouble, even if those people won't count towards your "alive" statistics. "Making the world a better place" is not n…

1) True. Still, I think I would choose the "malaria" world over the "batmobile" world; and the "malaria" world is probably not optimal. (Remember, he already has a Batmobile. In the "malaria" world I'm assuming he keeps using it.) 2) Research isn't the only thing money can buy. I was thinking mosquito nets. And again, that's probably not optimal.

If every single person who wanted to help out just kept saying "But these people need it more!" Then these kids wouldn't get the morale boosts they so sorely need.

People need to do these things. You can't just say "He isn't being efficient enough! Malaria patients need it more!" Because that's just unfair on these kids.

Re: Batman's Real Story

#30

Post by checker »

scintill76 wrote: post #17
MBlume wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting ways to give back should not really be a desideratum. Look for maximally efficient, effective ways of giving back.

Maybe it's impossible to find the "maximally efficient, effective ways", so you should do the interesting ones (i.e., not everyone is doing) that enrich you and make you happy, and have a measurable positive effect on others, like this guy does. With him being well-off, would it be more "maximally efficient" for him to do something else with his money? Maybe, but he wouldn't be making people happy with his black Lamb…

I think motivation can be a huge factor. It's a lot easier to help out if you really enjoy what you're doing.
Post reply on HN