[bena]

Technically "long-termism" should lead them straight to nihilism. Because, eventually, everything will end. One way or another. The odds are just 1. At some point, there are no more future humans. The number of humans are zero. Also, due to the nature of the infinite, any finite thing is essentially a rounding error and not worth concerning oneself with.

I get the feeling these people often want to seem smarter than they are, regardless of how smart they are. And they want to get money to ostensibly "consider these issues", but really they want money for nothing.

If they wanted to do right by the future masses, they should be looking to the things that are affecting us right now. But they treat those issues as if they'll work out in the wash.

[aspenmayer]

> Technically "long-termism" should lead them straight to nihilism. Because, eventually, everything will end. One way or another. The odds are just 1. At some point, there are no more future humans. The number of humans are zero. Also, due to the nature of the infinite, any finite thing is essentially a rounding error and not worth concerning oneself with.

The current sums invested and donated in altruist causes are rounding errors themselves compared to GDPs of countries, so the revealed preferences of those investing and donating to altruist causes is to care about the future and the present also.

Are you saying that they should give a greater preference to help those who already exist rather than those who may exist in the future?

I see a lot of Peter Singer’s ideas in modern “effective” altruism, but I get the sense from your comment that you don’t think that they have good reasons for doing what they do, or that their reason leads them to support well-meaning but ineffective solutions. I am trying to understand your position without misrepresenting your point or goals. Are you naysaying or do you have an alternative?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

[bena]

I think it's essentially a grift. An excuse to do nothing while looking like you care and reaping rewards.

If they wanted to help, they should be focused on the now. Global poverty, climate change, despotic world leaders. They should be aligning themselves against such things.

But instead what we see is essentially not that. Effective altruism is a lot like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, a bit of a misnomer.

[imtringued]

They have aligned themselves in favor of global poverty, climate change and despotic world leaders.

A lot of them argue that poor countries essentially don't matter. Climate change is not an extinction event and there should an authoritarian world government to prevent nuclear conflict to minimize the risk of nuclear extinction.

>In his dissertation On the Overwhelming Importance of Shaping the Far Future (2013), supposedly “one of the best texts on existential risks,”[9] Nicholas Beckstead meditates on the “ripple effects” a human life might have for future generations and concludes “that saving a life in a rich country is substantially more important than saving a life in a poor country” due to the higher level of innovation and economic productivity attained in these countries.[10]

https://umbau.hfg-karlsruhe.de/posts/philosophy-against-the-...

[jefftk]

The site you reference quotes Beckstead out of context, and either reading the context or looking at what he spent the next decade of his life working on would make it clear that he thinks the marginal dollar is better spent on saving lives in poor countries than rich ones. He well understands that his "other things being equal" in his dissertation essentially never holds in practice, and was writing for a philosophy audience where this kind of hypothetical is expected.

[Viliam1234]

Meanwhile, on an actual EA website: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities

[skinnymuch]

Agreed.

To be pedantic, DPRK is run via the will of the people to a degree comparable to any country. A bigger misnomer is the west calling liberal “democracy”, just democracy.

[tpm]

Even if I understand what you mean, DPRK is very far away from democratic countries. It's not comparable at all.

[skinnymuch]

My point is that most people who see that think a country like America or Europe are democracies and that is partly why it would be a misnomer. When it is arguable that DPRK state is more a will of the people than the west.

The elite letting the people choose between a few candidates is not a democracy. There are no “democratic” countries in that way.

[tpm]

> When it is arguable that DPRK state is more a will of the people than the west.

It's not arguable, it's simply wrong. But to understand that you would have to understand much more about the DPRK.

> The elite letting the people choose between a few candidates is not a democracy.

It is, but more importantly, your framing is wrong. Every democracy has several levels of democratic institutions (local, state, federal etc.), there are often 'surprise' election winners; there are also non-elective ways for non-elite people to influence policy. DPRK has none of this.

[mensetmanusman]

“ When it is arguable that DPRK state is more a will of the people than the west.”

Ba da Ching

[GuinansEyebrows]

> But they treat those issues as if they'll work out in the wash.

there's something pathologically, virally sick about wealth accumulation's primary function being the further accumulation of wealth. for a movement rooted in "rationalism," EA seems pretty irrationally focused on excusing antisocial behavior.

[Viliam1234]

> wealth accumulation's primary function being the further accumulation of wealth

Then we are lucky that EA promotes giving more to charity as the primary function of accumulation of wealth.

> EA seems pretty irrationally focused on excusing antisocial behavior.

Is a guy getting a well-paid job at Microsoft and donating half of his salary to African charities really your best example of antisocial behavior?

[bena]

What it promotes and what happens are two different things.

“The purpose of a system is what it does.”

[GuinansEyebrows]

> Then we are lucky that EA promotes giving more to charity as the primary function of accumulation of wealth.

no, we are not lucky. EA-good-because-charity-good is a brain-pretzel way of lobbying against equitable taxation.

> Is a guy getting a well-paid job at Microsoft and donating half of his salary to African charities really your best example of antisocial behavior?

you're inventing a competitive debate regarding a hypothetical "best example of antisocial behavior". i didn't target anyone specifically with any part of my post.

[Viliam1234]

Well, I base my opinion about EA on specific people I happen to know, such as https://www.jefftk.com/news/ea , but of course that shouldn't stop anyone from making up edgy interpretations and posting them as a fact. Because what is the point of discussing actual effective altruists when imaginary villains are a much more interesting topic.