[chaseadam17]

Man, EA is so close to getting it. They are right that we have a moral obligation to help those in need but they are wrong about how to do it.

Don't outsource your altruism by donating to some GiveWell-recommended nonprofit. Be a human, get to know people, and ask if/how they want help. Start close to home where you can speak the same language and connect with people.

The issues with EA all stem from the fact that the movement centralizes power into the hands of a few people who decide what is and isn't worthy of altruism. Then similar to communism, that power gets corrupted by self-interested people who use it to fund pet projects, launder reputations, etc.

Just try to help the people around you a bit more. If everyone did that, we'd be good.

[mk12]

If everyone did that, lots of people would still die of preventable causes in poor countries. I think GiveWell does a good job of identifying areas of greatest need in public health around the world. I would stop trusting them if they turned out to be corrupt or started misdirecting funds to pet projects. I don’t think everyone has to donate this way as it’s very personal decision, nor does it automatically make someone a good person or justify immoral ways of earning money, but I think it’s a good thing to help the less fortunate who are far away and speak a different language.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> Just try to help the people around you a bit more. If everyone did that, we'd be good.

This describes a generally wealthy society with some people doing better than average and others worse. Redistributing wealth/assistance from the first group to the second will work quite well for this society.

It does nothing to address the needs of a society in which almost everyone is poor compared to some other potential aid-giving society.

Supporting your friends and neighbors is wonderful. It does not, in general, address the most pressing needs in human populations worldwide.

[chaseadam17]

If you live in a wealthy society it's possible to travel or move or get to know people in a different society and offer to help them.

[skybrian]

There might be a bit of a language barrier, so you’ll need a translator. Also a place to stay, people to cook for you, and transportation. The tourist infrastructure isn’t all that developed in the poorest areas.

Tourism does redistribute money, but a lot of resources go to taking care of the tourists.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

The GP said:

> Just try to help the people around you a bit more. If everyone did that, we'd be good.

That's why I was replying too. Obviously, if you are willing to "do more", then you can potentially get more done.

[jimbokun]

What studies can you point to demonstrating your approach is more effective than donating to a GiveWell recommended non profit?

[keiferski]

That's the thing though, if EA had said: find 10 people in your life and help them directly, it wouldn't have appealed to the well-off white collar workers that want to spend money, but not actually do anything. The movement became popular because it didn't require one to do anything other than spend money in order to be lauded.

[phantasmish]

Better, it’s a small step to “being a small part of something that’s doing a little evil to a shitload of people (say, working on Google ~scams targeting the vulnerable and spying on everybody~ Ads) is not just OK, but good, as long as I spend a few grand a year buying mosquito nets to prevent malaria, saving a bunch of lives!”

Which obviously has great appeal.