[monktastic1]

> Mao starved millions of people while genuinely trying to help them.

It's of course impossible to truly know another's motivations, but I don't agree that this was true of Mao.

For my part, I don't believe that the "only real measurement" is purity of motivation. But I do believe that when policies are created under the disingenuous guise of kindness (as I suspect the ones from this article are) they ultimately do more harm than good.

Anyway, thank you for at least remaining polite.

[Kalium]

I want you to take a moment and focus on a time in your life when you tried, deeply and genuinely tried something, and saw your attempt fail because your pure intent wasn't the same as a workable approach. I want us to be on the same wavelength here. It's an experience that every engineer has at least once.

One cannot reverse-engineer intentions from results. Great suffering can result from the kindest of intentions. Such outcomes do not invalidate the deep and genuine kindness felt, the intent that bloomed therein, or the suffering that resulted. One should never confuse intent for effect and one should never assume good intent automatically leads to good results. More than one person has died from a misguided blooming of genuine kindness.

I implore you to consider something objective, countable, and measurable. Like people helped for money spent, rather than genuineness of kindness or blooming of intent. Think like an engineer trying to solve a problem. Decades of pure motives, deep and genuine kindness, and overflowing decency got us here. There's little reason to think more will fix matters, and there are thousands of people who could really use some practical help (and who won't look too closely at how genuine your kindness is if it drives help).

[monktastic1]

> I implore you to consider something objective, countable, and measurable. Like people helped for money spent, rather than genuineness of kindness or blooming of intent.

I don't think we disagree there. I even attended a conference (the Effective Altruism Summit) on just this topic. I also put my money where my mouth is. The only reason I spend time on any of this is because I've spent more than a little time introspecting on my true motives.

Maybe I can be more precise in what I'm trying to communicate.

Take two people with equal capacities for analytical reasoning and ask them to solve some human problem. Suppose that in the first person, the realization of empathy has not deeply taken root.

Even if they generate superficially similar solutions, the first will likely be infused with a self-serving agenda in ways that will become visible in myriad details of its implementation. (In fact, without such an agenda, the first person wouldn't ever consider solving the problem on his own in the first place.)

I'm not talking about a sociopath here. I'm talking about a mostly decent human being, whose mind is nevertheless generally too busy to perceive the tremendous amount of need around him (or else regards it disdainfully). This describes me (though hopefully a little less in recent years) as well as the vast majority of my colleagues.

Silicon Valley already has the talent. That talent could use a little more heart.

[Kalium]

I understand why you feel this way. It seems impossible that so much talent and intelligence could fail to solve such obviously tractable problems, if but moved by basic empathy and kindness and decency to examine them seriously. Silicon Valley can do anything it sets its mind to. History makes that plain!

I don't think I agree. I think the kinds of problems Silicon Valley can effectively solve are limited in nature and scope. I think the problems surrounding homelessness in Silicon Valley and the larger Bay are fundamentally political, shaped by decades of an excess of empathy and kindness and decency and a dearth of pragmatism. I think that an understanding of this situation has driven away many with empathy for their own emotional self-preservation.

In short, I don't agree that the problem is that mostly decent human beings fail to see the tremendous amount of need around them. I think the problem is that mostly decent human beings see the need, and also that it exists within an intractable political framework. Thus, they retreat rather than break themselves on those rocks of kindness and decency gone horrifyingly wrong.

The problem is not a lack of empathy or lack of awareness. The problem is that we're in a scenario where you cannot question the cost-effectiveness of homelessness spending without someone retorting "Those people work really hard!", as if that is some kind of response to the point raised.

[monktastic1]

> It seems impossible that so much talent and intelligence could fail to solve such obviously tractable problems

It's not that I think that Silicon Valley can solve the problem. It's really only that I think it's disingenuous to claim one is trying to help people if one is really only trying to shovel them out of sight, and that this chasm will ultimately be reflected in the outcome of any plan that results.

That said, I hope I am wrong about the protagonists of the story.

[Kalium]

I agree. It's quite likely that competent people who set out with ill intent will manage to achieve some ill.

This should not be confused for a belief that setting out with good intentions will yield good results. It's far, far harder to improve things than it is to make things worse. Social policy does not function on the "Law of Attraction".

[monktastic1]

I agree. I don't think it even has to go as far as ill will. Even run-of-the-mill selfishness bleeds deeply into purported attempts to help others.

Thus an essential part of helping anyone is: be sure that you're really doing it to _help them_. It's not sufficient by a long shot (as you rightly point out), but it is more or less necessary.

Thanks for the frank discussion.