Exactly! Philanthropy is best for experimentation for showing proof of concept that the public funding can expand on or for filling in cracks in the system.
@@stephenschiavone8592 The problem with public funding IMO is that it's largely democratically accountable to a public that's biased against helping foreigners, wildly overestimate how much we currently do, and often want to cut it. Africans at risk of malaria or factory farmed animals can't vote in our elections, so philanthropists who aren't beholden to the public have the potential to do things the government won't. Although GW Bush doing PEPFAR is a good counterexample where the government did something really effective bc of Bush's personal interest in the issue, and the public mostly isn't aware enough to care about it, so I'd agree in cases where you can get something like that.
True story . I Listened to this as the podcast version as I cycled to work. I went past another cyclist who had stopped and was having a technical issue with their gears. As an EA proponent, I told them I’d love to help now, but it would be much better if I went and studied bike maintenance. I could then (maybe?) help someone more comprehensively in the far future and that them being late for work today was a small price to pay. In reality though, I stopped and helped. Because they needed help now.
The "Long Term-ism" side of EA is a lot less appealing than the simple idea that we should donate to effective causes. Honestly, I would rather have an apathetic person than someone who is going to do good "once they make it." First off, the person who is working toward their lofty goal will have a great tool to rationalize doing some bad things along the way; the road to good intentions can be paved with Hell. More hypothetically, I wouldn't be surprised if people who say they are going do something good in the future actually do so at less of a rate, because they have already received the fame/accolades/dopamine hit from their public commitment to do good... later. But making your donations to organizations where a large proportion of your money actually goes towards the cause, that is a great idea!
It's like the many times Elon Musk announced that they would help out, got the good press and then either he didn't follow through on the promise or it was not at all on the level it needed to be.
The big problem with EA is that advice for good normal people "collect money, then give it away" is good moral advice. But the type of people who hear "being selfish first is moral" and are attracted to this philosophy kinda suck. They are inherently more selfish and more willing to be underhanded or two faced.
The issue here is that the kind of tech worker who subscribes to EA as an ideology, rarely ONLY subscribes to EA. This is why the work of Emile Torres and Timnit Gebru in bundling EA into its context as one part of TESCREAL ideology is so important to understanding where this stuff is headed.
Also, like...just tax these super rich people. Tax them and stop creating these leeches on our society, who will use EA pledges to justify why they shouldn't be taxed.
I think the big problem for me is that EA can lead to this mentality of "oh I'm going to do X and that will save trillions in the future" giving them moral permission to do whatever they want to make money now.
I would have a lot more sympathy for EA if their goals were “we’re giving X% of our annual income now to a cause we agree on as most critical to humanity AND we pledge to give lump sums in the future”. To me the idea that “investing small sums that could save or improve lives now is a waste of money, because if *I* manage my money now I can (of course) give so much more later and make a REAL difference” is both depressing and arrogant. I give 10% of my salary to a few charitable causes every month. It may not be the most effective, but at least I know I’m helping people now not (maybe) later. And that way of giving isn’t gatekept by the wealthy.
I was really expecting you to bring up that Aella specifically banned E/Accs from her birthday 'thing' which was just so funny to me reading about it. I do think there is this sense where it's suspicious that people who claim to care so much about humanity don't donate to any causes that would help people out right now.
It's just when people go out of their way to announce their EA.... Like are you doing it for attention and to put yourself on a pedestal, or are you sincerely trying to do something good?
It is incredibly difficult to genially help people. Here is what I typically see: People see bad thing happen, people feel bad, people do thing that make bad feel go away. Its rare for people to spend any time to see if their actions actually help in the way they intend. My first understanding of EA was that it says that thinking before action is good, and maybe lets try to genuinely move the needle. Take actions that actually help, not just make you feel better. Taking it 10 steps further and saying you need to enrich yourself first loses the plot for me. Also when you go and make your money where does it come from?
One problem with EA is that's the idea is based on a technocracy seeking rent at best and committing fraud at worst to elevate their economic standing in order to "benefit" unfortunates. This is not dissimilar from a slaveholder in the south giving to a local education fund for poor white people. It's built on an inherently exploitative system and therefore feels unfair. A second problem is that tech people have an outsized sense of grandeur when doing good and therefore don't have the perspective or introspection to understand how the frame of altruism makes their economic desires seem detached. Take for instance Elon Musk who advocated for his recent pay package in order to bring robots to humanity, create better AI, and visit Mars. The messaging is that the world will be a worse place if Musk doesn't get his money. But the public knows this is bullshit because its in the context of laying off 20% of Tesla employees.
Effective Altruism is a motte and bailey. You have this nice easily defended face where you talk about fixing problems as effectively as possible, but when you pull back the curtain, you have people giving themselves permission to do whatever they want now in the name of infinite good being done later. And it's not a glitch in the utilitarian calculus, it is the natural result of it. If you assume a sufficiently large good in the future, you can give yourself permission to do any evil you want
5:36 I really doubt Yudkowsky ever said that. He doesn't consider himself an EA, and thinks AGI is likely to kill everyone in 1-3 decades, so there's no point playing with malaria nets. I think I did once see him criticize X-risk peoples' habit of telling people about malaria net stuff before X-risk stuff like it's some sort of example problem. If people think the world is at risk in their lifetime, you don't need to ground it in careful consequentialist arguments. Most of them understand it's a problem using common sense morality. But that's pretty much the opposite of what you said here.
(3X bonus non -contributive comment) -I get a special feeling in me bones when I hear tech bro's confidently use the words - "(what) most people think..." in a genuine attempt to justify something and/or make a meaningless, yet agreeable point. None of these dudes seem to fully grasp the possibility that MAYBE.. just maybe, the other ppl in this world might NOT be npc's... Some, deliver it in such a disarming way -people don't even listen to what's being said. anywho. great episode ya'll. Hope you guys are doing amazing!
EA is a philosophy of defeat. And ofc it's being peddle by the rich. OH don't tax us! Just let me convince my rich friends to donate money! To help! ... Later!
Saying things like bed nets or vitamin tablets is definitely a hook to get people onside with EA, it's part of their pitch that people are becoming used to and somewhat suspicious of. Who doesn't want to do good? Who doesn't want to do good better? Part of it does come down to helping people get onto the first EA step, but for much of it they don't want people to get further than simply donating to "effective" charities, many of which are run by EAs, or have become increasingly EA adjacent, wanting to maintain EA funding pipelines mostly associated with a few tech billionaires. In the language of EA too much movement building could be dysgenic if you get people joining who don't agree sufficiently with EA top percentiles, whilst it seems better, at least from a leadership perspective to further concentrate power amongst a few identifiable leaders, Singer, MacAskill, Karnofsky, Bostrom, Ord, Bankman-Fried. More recently the tension between short-termism and longtermism has served to hide many of the issues in short-termism, such as EAs taking over movements, generating movement narratives, and having unassailable IQs. It could be that donating to poorer countries in Africa is not the thing that is most likely to bring about utopia, but don't worry because GiveDirectly also has a USA division and apparently donating to the USA leads to an increasing flow of dollars to Africa. Whilst Singer the short-termist is a pure utilitarian, and MacAskill at least pretends to take an interest in moral uncertainty, even if that isn't reflected in EA.
This whole conversation was frustrating for me because it is missing a huge critical issue. Philanthropy is a purposeful distraction away from public policy. We allow all these people to accumulate inhuman levels of wealth and then allow them to dictate social policy through their donations, which allows government to claim that there's no reason to get involved in things like housing policy, addiction, or maybe something crazy like "why do we allow billionaires to exist"? Read "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing The World"
Sigh. I was really hoping Vincent had actually found a viable candidate that I could have voted for for mayor. November's race is a complete dumpster fire.
Philanthropy will never be effective to solve issues that are structural.
Exactly! Philanthropy is best for experimentation for showing proof of concept that the public funding can expand on or for filling in cracks in the system.
Because philanthropy is bullshit.
It's the excuse for oligarchs to reign.
@@stephenschiavone8592 The problem with public funding IMO is that it's largely democratically accountable to a public that's biased against helping foreigners, wildly overestimate how much we currently do, and often want to cut it. Africans at risk of malaria or factory farmed animals can't vote in our elections, so philanthropists who aren't beholden to the public have the potential to do things the government won't. Although GW Bush doing PEPFAR is a good counterexample where the government did something really effective bc of Bush's personal interest in the issue, and the public mostly isn't aware enough to care about it, so I'd agree in cases where you can get something like that.
Yeah, all of this is deck chairs.
I wonder if the question is not really, "Is effective altruism evil?, " but rather "Is effective altruism bullshit?"
True story . I Listened to this as the podcast version as I cycled to work. I went past another cyclist who had stopped and was having a technical issue with their gears.
As an EA proponent, I told them I’d love to help now, but it would be much better if I went and studied bike maintenance. I could then (maybe?) help someone more comprehensively in the far future and that them being late for work today was a small price to pay.
In reality though, I stopped and helped. Because they needed help now.
EA proponents often just feel disingenuous.
Like something going to the "moon". At what point have you earned enough to give?
Because it's bullshit.
"Trickle down economics"
"Globalization"
"Gentrification"
Lots of bullshit out there.
Step 1: give me all the money in the world.
Step 2:
The "Long Term-ism" side of EA is a lot less appealing than the simple idea that we should donate to effective causes. Honestly, I would rather have an apathetic person than someone who is going to do good "once they make it." First off, the person who is working toward their lofty goal will have a great tool to rationalize doing some bad things along the way; the road to good intentions can be paved with Hell. More hypothetically, I wouldn't be surprised if people who say they are going do something good in the future actually do so at less of a rate, because they have already received the fame/accolades/dopamine hit from their public commitment to do good... later.
But making your donations to organizations where a large proportion of your money actually goes towards the cause, that is a great idea!
It's like the many times Elon Musk announced that they would help out, got the good press and then either he didn't follow through on the promise or it was not at all on the level it needed to be.
Confiscatory Taxation of Wealth > Philanthropy > Effective Altruism
EA has vibes of scientology for mathematicians.
Ea is just cover for ends means reasoning
the problem with EA is that the idea of the "most good" is subjective AF.
The big problem with EA is that advice for good normal people "collect money, then give it away" is good moral advice. But the type of people who hear "being selfish first is moral" and are attracted to this philosophy kinda suck. They are inherently more selfish and more willing to be underhanded or two faced.
The issue here is that the kind of tech worker who subscribes to EA as an ideology, rarely ONLY subscribes to EA. This is why the work of Emile Torres and Timnit Gebru in bundling EA into its context as one part of TESCREAL ideology is so important to understanding where this stuff is headed.
Also, like...just tax these super rich people. Tax them and stop creating these leeches on our society, who will use EA pledges to justify why they shouldn't be taxed.
I think the big problem for me is that EA can lead to this mentality of "oh I'm going to do X and that will save trillions in the future" giving them moral permission to do whatever they want to make money now.
28:11 I'm prob projecting/mis-hearing but Bennett calling him "Merc" Andreessen is so apt I laugh-scared my poor elderly tomcat.
Nice Lil Tuesday Fellas 🙋♂️👊
Tax Wealth. Now. Let democracy distribute it.
Anyone who tells you they can tell you the perfect way to be moral is making something INCREDIBLY close to a religious claim.
Thanks as always for the vid!
I would have a lot more sympathy for EA if their goals were “we’re giving X% of our annual income now to a cause we agree on as most critical to humanity AND we pledge to give lump sums in the future”. To me the idea that “investing small sums that could save or improve lives now is a waste of money, because if *I* manage my money now I can (of course) give so much more later and make a REAL difference” is both depressing and arrogant. I give 10% of my salary to a few charitable causes every month. It may not be the most effective, but at least I know I’m helping people now not (maybe) later. And that way of giving isn’t gatekept by the wealthy.
I was really expecting you to bring up that Aella specifically banned E/Accs from her birthday 'thing' which was just so funny to me reading about it.
I do think there is this sense where it's suspicious that people who claim to care so much about humanity don't donate to any causes that would help people out right now.
Opening the Aella can of worms is far beyond this humble show
It's just when people go out of their way to announce their EA.... Like are you doing it for attention and to put yourself on a pedestal, or are you sincerely trying to do something good?
Bigtime shoutout to my Crypo Critics Corner boys, hyped for the new sode, LETS GOE!
Sorry lol
Good discussion! Thanks guys.
It is incredibly difficult to genially help people. Here is what I typically see: People see bad thing happen, people feel bad, people do thing that make bad feel go away. Its rare for people to spend any time to see if their actions actually help in the way they intend. My first understanding of EA was that it says that thinking before action is good, and maybe lets try to genuinely move the needle. Take actions that actually help, not just make you feel better. Taking it 10 steps further and saying you need to enrich yourself first loses the plot for me. Also when you go and make your money where does it come from?
ty guys
One problem with EA is that's the idea is based on a technocracy seeking rent at best and committing fraud at worst to elevate their economic standing in order to "benefit" unfortunates. This is not dissimilar from a slaveholder in the south giving to a local education fund for poor white people. It's built on an inherently exploitative system and therefore feels unfair. A second problem is that tech people have an outsized sense of grandeur when doing good and therefore don't have the perspective or introspection to understand how the frame of altruism makes their economic desires seem detached. Take for instance Elon Musk who advocated for his recent pay package in order to bring robots to humanity, create better AI, and visit Mars. The messaging is that the world will be a worse place if Musk doesn't get his money. But the public knows this is bullshit because its in the context of laying off 20% of Tesla employees.
Effective Altruism is a motte and bailey. You have this nice easily defended face where you talk about fixing problems as effectively as possible, but when you pull back the curtain, you have people giving themselves permission to do whatever they want now in the name of infinite good being done later. And it's not a glitch in the utilitarian calculus, it is the natural result of it. If you assume a sufficiently large good in the future, you can give yourself permission to do any evil you want
5:36 I really doubt Yudkowsky ever said that. He doesn't consider himself an EA, and thinks AGI is likely to kill everyone in 1-3 decades, so there's no point playing with malaria nets.
I think I did once see him criticize X-risk peoples' habit of telling people about malaria net stuff before X-risk stuff like it's some sort of example problem. If people think the world is at risk in their lifetime, you don't need to ground it in careful consequentialist arguments. Most of them understand it's a problem using common sense morality.
But that's pretty much the opposite of what you said here.
Everyone is so baked by the end of this.
(3X bonus non -contributive comment) -I get a special feeling in me bones when I hear tech bro's confidently use the words - "(what) most people think..." in a genuine attempt to justify something and/or make a meaningless, yet agreeable point. None of these dudes seem to fully grasp the possibility that MAYBE.. just maybe, the other ppl in this world might NOT be npc's... Some, deliver it in such a disarming way -people don't even listen to what's being said.
anywho.
great episode ya'll. Hope you guys are doing amazing!
EA is a philosophy of defeat. And ofc it's being peddle by the rich.
OH don't tax us! Just let me convince my rich friends to donate money! To help!
... Later!
Saying things like bed nets or vitamin tablets is definitely a hook to get people onside with EA, it's part of their pitch that people are becoming used to and somewhat suspicious of. Who doesn't want to do good? Who doesn't want to do good better?
Part of it does come down to helping people get onto the first EA step, but for much of it they don't want people to get further than simply donating to "effective" charities, many of which are run by EAs, or have become increasingly EA adjacent, wanting to maintain EA funding pipelines mostly associated with a few tech billionaires.
In the language of EA too much movement building could be dysgenic if you get people joining who don't agree sufficiently with EA top percentiles, whilst it seems better, at least from a leadership perspective to further concentrate power amongst a few identifiable leaders, Singer, MacAskill, Karnofsky, Bostrom, Ord, Bankman-Fried.
More recently the tension between short-termism and longtermism has served to hide many of the issues in short-termism, such as EAs taking over movements, generating movement narratives, and having unassailable IQs. It could be that donating to poorer countries in Africa is not the thing that is most likely to bring about utopia, but don't worry because GiveDirectly also has a USA division and apparently donating to the USA leads to an increasing flow of dollars to Africa.
Whilst Singer the short-termist is a pure utilitarian, and MacAskill at least pretends to take an interest in moral uncertainty, even if that isn't reflected in EA.
The "Stanford" is silent.
You guilt trip people and harass donors until they giving you money. That wild to admit lol
This whole conversation was frustrating for me because it is missing a huge critical issue. Philanthropy is a purposeful distraction away from public policy. We allow all these people to accumulate inhuman levels of wealth and then allow them to dictate social policy through their donations, which allows government to claim that there's no reason to get involved in things like housing policy, addiction, or maybe something crazy like "why do we allow billionaires to exist"?
Read "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing The World"
"What is about EA's that really bother people so much?" This coming from a guy who plays hide the ball when his objective is to repeal Proposition 13.
EA seems slimier and more unethical the more it’s defended. Maybe just top marginal tax rates of 100% and fix this once and for all?
Sigh. I was really hoping Vincent had actually found a viable candidate that I could have voted for for mayor. November's race is a complete dumpster fire.
Cas Coin to Ganymede!
Lying to people for your cause is not great consequentialism, because you aren't tallying the harms done by spreading misinformation.
oi!
Mutual Aid >>> philanthropy
cmon man this dude can't be serious
Cas is bigly a socialist
Increase cap gains and inheritance tax suggests that most of govt is altruistic.... guffaw
Crypto Critics Commie Corner
Yes