Effective altruism is not effective • Hacker News Board

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#91

Post by nemo44x » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 3:30 AM UTC

jjj1232 wrote: post #7

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…

Both of your examples are individualistic, what about thousands or millions of poor people collectively fighting for something? The total impact of collective action is much greater than the sum of its individual parts.

In therory you’re right. But in reality you’re not.

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#92

Post by scotty79 » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 3:31 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…

> [...] but does not himself provide an argument for it, just an assertion that political change is "the most obvious and powerful tool we have."

Maybe because vastly more people were lifted out of poverty (and associated issues) by political decission to switch to some version of free market economy than by any kind of individual charity?

Author probably didn't state it because he assumed it's a common knowledge.

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#93

Post by scotty79 » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 3:36 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…

Not to mention that becoming rich usually requires participaing in some kind of scheme that transfers money from vast number of people poorer than you into your pocket.

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#94

Post by FeepingCreature » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 3:36 AM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #49

I think the biggest problem with the Effective Altruism movement is that it has become too tied up with people who like to debate things, especially topics like AI Risk. Optimizing the effectiveness of one's charitable donations is a reasonable goal. Doing basic research to choose efficient and effective charities makes sense. However, there are large parts of the EA community that have gone off the deep end of debat…

If you are unclear between AMF (bed nets) and AI Risk, and you find AI Risk dubious, then donate to AMF. It sounds like you're complaining that your choices have been pared down to two, and you don't like one of them.

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#95

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 3:45 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…

[deleted]

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#96

Post by oconnor663 » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 3:47 AM UTC

lacker wrote: post #23

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…

It seems like if an NGO provided a UBI in a region that was controlled by a dictatorship, the dictatorship could simply take all the money. When taxes are not set democratically, giving money to individuals seems roughly equivalent to giving money straight to a dictator.

GiveDirectly has a lot of experience with cash transfers through M-Pesa and similar systems. I don't know exactly how much corruption they have to confront, but they might be better at cutting through it than you'd think.

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#97

Post by Tyr42 » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 3:48 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…

Sure. So it's possible to focus on getting rich and then never give back. There's a solution to that, which is continuing to give a percentage of your income.

Some people are quite charitable and give 10%. I'm a little more selfish and give 1.5%, but this is already currently helping people.

Is it really pie in the sky idealism if (statistically) I've saved around 6 lives to far, (and helped many more). Still early in my career, and lots of time to go. I hope to cross 100 someday. But I started just as I graduated and have kept it up every year.

So I suppose the next question in my rebuttal would be to ask what alternative you suggest?

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#98

Post by Tyr42 » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 3:58 AM UTC

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #89

lmm wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2. Assumed to be more efficient than the individual joining the altruistic organization. Somehow the cap on good you can do is limited to marginal income, not about joining an organization and actually attempting to move the cause forward (whether through managerial efficiency, STEM work, or more). In most fields of endeavour markets and specialisation work better than trying to do something yourself. If someone wa…

How do you know this? The usual market assumptions involve perfect knowledge and efficient market clearing. It’s unclear to me that charitable initiatives have anything even close to perfect information, and the labor market is famous for being inefficient, especially given that careers are driven by many inelastic factors, and are often driven by Veblenian effects more than actual efficiency. Sure, assuming a perfec…

Honesty if you make a good case for it being more effective, go for it.

I'm happy that someone has done the research on if I want to donate, where does it do the most good however.

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#99

Post by Karrot_Kream » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 4:14 AM UTC

Tyr42 wrote: post #98

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know this? The usual market assumptions involve perfect knowledge and efficient market clearing. It’s unclear to me that charitable initiatives have anything even close to perfect information, and the labor market is famous for being inefficient, especially given that careers are driven by many inelastic factors, and are often driven by Veblenian effects more than actual efficiency. Sure, assuming a perfec…

Honesty if you make a good case for it being more effective, go for it. I'm happy that someone has done the research on if I want to donate, where does it do the most good however.

Actually, I'd urge you to actually do something about it instead. Find a local cause that resonates with you or a disadvantaged population that you would like to assist and get involved. Skin in the game and all that ;)

Re: Effective altruism is not effective

#100

Post by tylerhou » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 4:34 AM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #85

kiba wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think individualist effective altruism is incompatible with collective effort.

Sure, but it doesn't fit into the traditional framework of "effective altruism". Collective efforts-based altruism is just very different in so many ways.

Why not? A collective, efforts-based, altruistic organization needs funding. If such a organization could demonstrate that their efforts lead to good outcomes (improve happiness, save lives), then effective altruists would donate to them.

A legitimate argument is that not everyone can make tons of money and donate because someone has to do the work. But there are plenty of "effective" organizations that are not yet overfunded.