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

31–40 of 57 posts

Re: Batman's Real Story

#31

Post by alttag »

tomjen3 wrote: post #18
alttag wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. My son spent several months in a cancer ward. ... His best (and only, to my memory) visit from an "outsider" was an honest-to-goodness Santa Claus in the nicest Santa outfit I'd ever seen. My son's Wish (from Make-A-Wish) was to visit Spider-man. He was very much into superheroes. Although we did get to see him on a "wish-trip" to Universal Studios, he was too small for the Spider-man 3-D ride by about four inch…

As a child i spend a christmas in a hospital and indeed they had a santa claus comming by and giving me a small present. Still spending christmas in the hospital suck. I hope your kid is alright.

He was diagnosed two weeks before Christmas (2007). The Make-A-Wish trip to visit Spider-man was the following July (they work quickly!), and last time he was healthy enough to be up and about.

He passed away three week later, just before his fourth birthday.

... and that's why an article about Batman made me cry.

Re: Batman's Real Story

#32

Post by DEinspanjer »

einarlove wrote: post #16

Would realy love to see a documentary of this Batman. Seems like he would move more people then the Dark Knight.

Not me. I've seen far too much of a tendency in people to wish to pull down the "powerful" or "good" when they become too noticeable. The media seems to embrace this tendency by fishing for the dirt on people to make news.

This guy is doing a good thing for these kids. Even this article mentions that he has a checkered past. If he gets too much attention, I would bet money that some reporter is going to write up a sensational post about what a slimeball he is and that would tarnish and diminish the good work he is doing.

I don't want to hear about what a bad guy he is or was "in real life". That might mark me as a person happy with self delusion, but he isn't hurting people when he is doing this, he isn't likely to be in a position to easily hurt people. Unless he starts trying to monetize or otherwise make this something other than a simple act of charity, I'd rather keep him out of the harsh spotlight.

Re: Batman's Real Story

#33

Post by krschultz »

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…

That's pretty much the most heartless thing I've ever read.

I work with children with mental disabilities. The medium happens to be theraputic horseback riding. Theres a lot reasons why this is a good thing for them (motor skills, confidence, etc etc) but ultimately for me I can tell it makes them happy. And I can tell over the course of a few months they improve. at motor skills and verbal skills.

But by your estimation, since the money spent upkeeping a barn and feeding horses could be "better" spent on malaria nets for people across the globe, this is a waste?

It seems like you think maximum efficiency is achieved by taking 'lives saved' / 'dollars spent'.

You aren't accounting for 'improvements in peoples lives'. If I don't save anyone's life, but I make 20 people's better, haven't I done some good in the world? Why is the only noble cause the one where it saves someones life?

And why are we responsible for everyone? There are a huge number of people in the world who would be saved by simple changes in behavior - whether it comes to mosquito nets preventing malaria, condoms preventing HIV spread, or sanitary conditions preventing chlorea outbreaks. I've done engineers without borders, it's not hard/expensive to improve sanitation, but a lot of people just have no interest in doing anything. Why do you have to shit on people doing good work here by pointing out they're not solving problems halfway across the globe?

Re: Batman's Real Story

#34

Post by philh »

Eliezer wrote: post #22
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…

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

I've donated a little to SIAI and to Against Malaria Foundation. Probably not as much as I could afford to.

Re: Batman's Real Story

#35

Post by philh »

krschultz wrote: post #33
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…

That's pretty much the most heartless thing I've ever read. I work with children with mental disabilities. The medium happens to be theraputic horseback riding. Theres a lot reasons why this is a good thing for them (motor skills, confidence, etc etc) but ultimately for me I can tell it makes them happy. And I can tell over the course of a few months they improve. at motor skills and verbal skills. But by your estima…

> It seems like you think maximum efficiency is achieved by taking 'lives saved' / 'dollars spent'.

I never actually said this; "more people alive in 20 years" was an example. My main point was not "this future is better than that future", but "it is possible to decide which of these two futures is likely to be better".

This is also why I'm not accounting for 'improvements in peoples lives'. Not because we shouldn't account for that, but because accounting for it was beside the point.

That said, I think this would be a reasonable first-order estimate when it comes to comparing two charities. But I don't expect to ever be in a situation where a first-order estimate is all I can make.

And yes, I currently think the "malaria" world would be better than the "batmobile" world. I haven't thought about it very hard, so maybe I'm wrong.

> And why are we responsible for everyone?

If I can make a small improvement here or a large improvement in Africa, why would I not choose Africa?

(The improvement sizes should be assumed to have already taken into account things like funds being redirected, and all the other reasons why charities might sometimes not be efficient.)

> Why do you have to shit on people doing good work here

I'm not trying to shit on him.

Re: Batman's Real Story

#36

Post by philh »

jonnathanson wrote: post #26
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…

"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…

> But who said this was his objective?

Certainly not me. "I consider it $250,000 that he's spending on a cool hobby that he enjoys, that also makes kids happy, and that also brings publicity to doing-good-things"

> He's now got symbolic value, as does the $250,000 Batmobile

He already has symbolic value, and I doubt that the $250,000 Batmobile will have that much symbolic value over his current one.

I agree with the rest of your post; but while your defense of the "Batman" approach is valid, remember that he didn't try to get this publicity. If he hadn't been pulled over, we wouldn't know about him.

With that in mind, we can assume that he didn't sit down and try to work out how to maximise his effect on the world; which in turn means that he probably isn't maximising his effect on the world.

Re: Batman's Real Story

#37

Post by philh »

joelrunyon wrote: post #23
philh wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Absolutely. He's doing way better than "nothing".

But you present a false dilemma; it is possible to do some analysis without entering a hyperanalysis spiral of inaction.

Re: Batman's Real Story

#38

Post by philh »

Lockyy wrote: post #29
philh wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a cliche, but life isn't fair.

I could turn this around and say that what he's doing is "unfair" to malaria patients, who need his help more but aren't getting it.

If every single person who wanted to help out would find a cause, then find a better cause, the world would be a better place.

Re: Batman's Real Story

#39

Post by timwiseman »

ma2rten wrote: post #28
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.

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 o…

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.

You made excellent points up until this sentence. On a world wide scale, a couple million dollars is not even a drop in the bucket. But it can do tremendous good locally.

In my own life, I was helped out enormously because someone loaned me just $5000 at a critical time. More broadly, one of my professors is involved in a small nonprofit that targets one poor village in Africa. Their global impact is minute, but they have already helped that village create (not given, but helped it create for itself) a school for its children. Globally, a couple of million is probably not objectively measurable, but if targetted and used well it can make an enormous difference in the lives of a smaller group of people.

Re: Batman's Real Story

#40

Post by beatle »

alttag wrote: post #14
mcmatterson wrote: post #9

Having just come off multiple months of our daughter being in the hospital in some very grim (at the time) circumstances, I can say that while visits from celebrities are many, visits from celebrities that actually care are few. I would have loved to have seen Batman (even the Lenny B. Robinson version) wander down our ward. The world needs more of this guy.

Yes. My son spent several months in a cancer ward. ... His best (and only, to my memory) visit from an "outsider" was an honest-to-goodness Santa Claus in the nicest Santa outfit I'd ever seen. My son's Wish (from Make-A-Wish) was to visit Spider-man. He was very much into superheroes. Although we did get to see him on a "wish-trip" to Universal Studios, he was too small for the Spider-man 3-D ride by about four inch…

Had over a dozen friends and relatives who went through the same thing. You may be interested in this.

Daily Aspirin May Help Prevent and Treat Cancer

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/health/research/studies-li...

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20120320/daily-aspirin-may-...

Post reply on HN