Hacker News Reader

Comment by asimpletune | Hacker News Reader

Ok but now I’m kind of lost. I genuinely don’t know anything about EA, so this is an honest question.

If EA is improving the world according to your values, is it really distinct as a concept? Like, to me, the reason why I think almost anything is because it improves the world according to my values.

Another way to put it is that to me it kind of sounds like someone is saying, “we believe in doing the best thing”, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth. I also hope everyone wants to do the best thing ;)

View on HN

Effective altruism is about the _effective_ part. Don't just donate to the charity or cause that _sounds_ good; look for where your money would provide the biggest impact.

If you want to save lives in general, look for the most _effective_ charity like that, which may be something like mosquito nets rather than a cancer research foundation. Don't just donate money to whatever is the most obvious charity advertised on television.

If you had a family member with cancer, look at which of N cancer foundations spend the money most effectively and donate there.

Often, altruism comes down to people giving money to the 'obvious' causes, which don't necessarily use the money effectively.

cancer research will give benefits forever once a solution is found whereas mosquito nets will get worn out and so are only a temporary fix. Cancer cure also scales to more people eventually. Worse, how much is your donation contributing to cancer research? You just can't quantify that.

The whole concept just seems to assume you know everything, present and future, and have infinite calculation power.

First a disclaimer: I am not a part of EA community, but I have met several people from this community. And I am loosely connected to rationalists community. I find EA concept appealing and I think I should allocate some of my resources to help this movement.

Indeed my wording was too broad and over-compassing. Effective altruism was kick started from comparison of different organizations collecting money for whatever altruistic means. And comparison showed that these initiatives are vastly different in effectiveness which prompted an idea that we should take into account effectiveness of particular initiative before giving it money.

EA seems to focus on reducing suffering over improving happiness. Giving a hand to a stranger who have stumbled and have fallen to the ground near you is out of the scope: EA is about strategic long lasting calculated stuff.

"Doing good better" was the book title, and I think better defines the goal well. Not perfect, better.

The choices that people make with giving often have no framework for deciding good, let alone better. The moral question is not is X better than Y, but what of all the choices I am going to make can I make better?

If everyone made better choices, not perfect just better, there is a LOT we could improve.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com