Three of the most iconically evil world leaders of the previous century tried (if I’m feeling generous) to make humanity better by their own definition, but without allowing the science and the statistics tell them they were wrong about the basics.
"This time we learned from the mistakes of the past."
"... the boy began to delight in his daring flight, and abandoning his guide, drawn by desire for the heavens, soared higher. His nearness to the devouring sun softened the fragrant wax that held the wings: and the wax melted: he flailed with bare arms, but losing his oar-like wings, could not ride the air. Even as his mouth was crying his father’s name, it vanished into the dark blue sea ..." - Ovid
I understand the worry, but what's the alternative? Doing nothing? Every day, we are confronted with the facts, and we have to make a decision. Doing nothing could be one of them. I am highly convinced doing something is better than nothing, and the somethings I've found (not all the things, but some things) are Effective altruism.
If you have better proposals, name them, let us discuss and maybe we can do even better!
(the movement is really open about this -- which is one of the reasons some people have seemingly weird beliefs -- simply because some people said 'You should be instead doing X!!', where X was saving humanity from existential risks; maybe you should be shouting at us 'You should be instead doing Y!!', where Y is your idea, and if you're right we sincerely, truly hope you can change our minds)
Doing nothing would have been better than doing scientific socialism.
>I understand the worry, but what's the alternative?
Obviously the hardest question. The first and most important issue is the truth. The second most important issue is what are the limits of truth.
For me the idea of utilitarianism (and all variations on the idea of a purely rational/mathematical based morality) is an "anti truth", it isn't just false, it false and makes confident truth claims about the unknowable. Of course this an entirely negative claim, but there is one korrolary: People can be fulfilled without me understanding why and completely in despair with me not having any idea how to fix this.
I think nobody should be asking "how can I fix the world" before they have asked themselves if they are the person they think they should be. And whether there is someone there right now close to them, who could maybe really need some help.
Of course the world isn't saved by that, but is there any hope if we ignore the people closest to us in favor of vain dreams?
I have no idea what rhetorical point you’re trying to make with a reference to… Icarus? Especially as small-r rationality (i.e. science and statistics) is how we went from manned flight being only a myth, to walking on the moon.
>I have no idea what rhetorical point you’re trying to make with a reference to… Icarus?
Deadalus was a great inventor and scientist. When imprisoned he devises a means for him and his son to escape, in fact he realizes one of mans greatest achievements, flight.
While he is able to control his invention and makes good use out of it (making sure to avoid both extremes), his son can neither control himself nor the technology given to him. In the desire to reach ever greater heights he is ultimately destroyed.
The point is (or at least the one which is so easily read into the story) that all technology is dangerous and that great care needs to be put into how we make use of it.
The idea of using statistics and quantitative methods of the social sciences to devise the best way for humans to live is Icarus grasping at the sun. Very smart people have found new ideas, novel methods and all the mathematics to answer one of mankinds greatest question, if we let them use it a great future awaits.
This already was the folly of "scientific socialism", and your new attempt at it will land you in the Icarian see, just like last time.
But it’s also how capitalist governments work. And businesses. And every scientific advancement, including how we decided which of the covid vaccines to give the OK to and which ones to reject. It’s also how the chemistry of the synthetic fibres in your clothes and the plastic in your computer were learned, how the machines which made each component of the latter and assembled them into the finished products became reliable enough. It’s how we even know there’s a rise in obesity levels, how we learned which things are good SSRIs and which have unfortunate side effects, how we learned not to let everyone have as much alcohol as they (or their bartender) felt like, and why various countries allow tobacco to be sold but only with graphic depictions of the consequences (consequences which we only know because of statistics and science). Online advertising is nothing but statistical aggregations; algorithmic timelines and personalised search results and recommend products/content are basically the exact same statistics but used to sell the recommender itself rather than a 3rd party. The politicians in a democracy also do statistics to figure out how well they’re selling their ideas and if they need to change tactics or entirely switch their message (or even messenger).
And, as I said, literal flight, that’s also science and statistics.
A chainsaw can be used for marvelous things, the wood for your house or your furniture. It can be used to help people in need, removing objects trapping them. Even to put out fires in roofs. There are thousands of great uses for chainsaws.
Yet using it against a human will lead to a catastrophe. It is a mistake you do not want to make once. Making it twice should ve unthinkable.
Just because a tool is effective in situation A does not mean it is effective in situation B.
We tried your idea and it resulted in a human catastrophe.
Take a step back even further and it becomes "thinking really hard about how to make humanity the best it can be". Another step back and it's just "thinking really hard". Which, admittedly, has caused a lot of harm!
So is the solution to stop thinking? Or just to stop quantifying and analyzing? Or maybe it's the motivation, humanism, that's at fault, and we should all just worry about ourselves?
Mathematics is a far more cruel tool than any other means of thought.
When I was in 10th grade I was a utilitarian, in the philosophy class I assigned numerical values to suffering/happiness and calculated averages to solve moral dilemmas.
I have been wrong about a lot of things in my life, but that idea I certainly was the wrongest about.
Statistics knows absolutely nothing of kindness and hapiness can not be assigned a numerical value. Which didn't stop people from trying and creating unimaginable suffering.
Assuming you have even semi-common answers to questions like "what is an example of a great government", "what is an example of a great charity", or "what is an example of a great organization", you'll find it's an entity that makes extensive use of quantification and statistical analysis. Yes, they're as "unkind" as a sword, hammer, or pen. Yes, they have been used for evil. And sure, you can get by without them when you're making family-scale/tribal-scale moral decisions. But when you're chosing who to vote for (at, say, the federal level), or who to donate to (among worldwide charities), you're going to get better results if you quantify, or follow people who you trust to quantify.
I think I understand you -- just a single number can never capture the richness and complexity of a life. But it's not about just using numbers, it's about doing all the useful stuff, including putting numbers (which is indeed often very important). We can't feel the pain of a billion people -- we can only look at statistics in disbelief that so many beings are suffering so much, and try to make their lives better if we can (and indeed we can :) ).
> Which didn't stop people from trying and creating unimaginable suffering.
Aren't we already creating immense amounts of suffering by the conditions of animals (which often have terrible living conditions), preventable diseases and poverty? Why putting a number on it is more evil than doing nothing?
The problem arises if the number does not actually represent the suffering (which it will not).
In the end your policy will be about manipulating the system which outputs the number.
The incentives will not be to reduce any actual suffering or solve any real problems, since those might only be loosely correlated with the number.
It is extremely easy to reduce the number of crimes, or the amount of people needing psychiatric care. It is extremely hard to increase safety and social cohesion or the mental wellbeing of the population.
You don't understand one thing: we actually care. Like, we really, really care :) (at least that's my perception of many fellow EAs)
People behind those charities have diverse backgrounds in social sciences, philosophy, economics, and welcome better ways to do more good, better.
If we are not reducing suffering, we will investigate, and try to do better. If we're only decreasing malaria death statistics and increasing death by other means, if we're not effective, we really want to know. Some very skilled social scientists are working on this problem -- many in the field, talking to people, going to poor places where things like tropical diseases happen.
I think giving more weight to the psychological and broader human side is a fundamentally important point as well (which I agree with and have voiced opinions about), but we also have to remember the basic realities of the diseases (like malaria or diseases that cause lifelong blindness!), and the reality of living in extreme poverty. In the end I recommend that you see documentaries about people living in poverty, visit them if you can, to solidify your decision (and tell it to others -- communication is real and important!)
I have just heard of the Happy Lives Institute which seems to be looking at the global mental wellbeing perspective (note: I have done 0 research on them, but the idea seems good!), and I admire Scott Suskind's free website that gives evidence-based treatment guides for mental health issues[1]. Maybe share this perspective on EA forums?
If there was something truly absurd about what I am doing, really sincere criticism, I think I would have heard it more by now, but I welcome further examination of GiveWell charities (I personally really like GiveDirectly as well).
I also believe the point about giving locally.
The power of simply caring, being humane, is really important, and very central to EA. This is different from many other organizations where you're just optimizing a number, where you're guided by ego, by power, or just blindly maximizing something. By fundamentally caring about the result, which is the idea behind effectiveness, we can go much further and be much more robust to our own failures.
Three of the most iconically evil world leaders of the previous century tried (if I’m feeling generous) to make humanity better by their own definition, but without allowing the science and the statistics tell them they were wrong about the basics.