Comment by nuc1e0n | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nuc1e0n | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I've always thought of the "Effective Altruism" movement as a product of big egos. The ones following it think they know better than the ones they're 'saving'. But perhaps the EA adherents are seeking salvation for themselves rather than others. They see the ones they want to help as 'pitiful' in some way and want to provide for them. That seems a rather dehumanizing attitude to me.

Maybe people don't view themselves as pitiful and want to provide for themselves rather than be dependent on handouts at some unreliable rando's discression? People on the other side of the planet can have very different societal norms that go unconsidered outside of their communities.

I've always thought sticking to 1 or 2 degrees of separation avoids issues of cultural differences and long logistical chains. And who better to ask what would really help people than their friends?

Then again, I think fate sometimes chooses you for a bit of charity work and it's wise to go along with it.

> I've always thought of the "Effective Altruism" movement as a product of big egos. The ones following it think they know better than the ones they're 'saving'.

At least initially, EA was a pretty big proponent of direct aid like GiveDirectly[0], because just giving people money was seen to be more effective than most (though not all[1]) other forms of aid.

As for myself, I don't see why someone on the other side of the world would be more or less pitiful than someone locally. My main reason for preferring indirect aid is that there's something morally suspicious to me about only people in my "clan" receiving my charity. Is it really charity if it goes only to people who I like and who are within knowing distance of me? Or am I trying to achieve something? (For the same reasons, I'm careful to keep most of my work anonymous)

[0]: GiveWell directed a lot of funds to GiveDirectly early on (https://www.givewell.org/top-charities-fund), though they haven't since 2016.

[1]: Healthcare interventions like deworming are usually more efficient per dollar, but not by much, but they benefit from economies of scale so directing money to them direction is worthwhile.

I’ve always approached it from the other side and wondered about the appeal of altruism. Is it really so bad if you help your neighbor or someone you know? If you benefit from the improvement in your community is it some how less valuable? Your own community or clan is what you know best, what you are best positioned to help in monetary and non monetary ways. I also wonder if there is any true altruism. I think people usually benefit from their service or donation even if it’s just feeling good (or perhaps feeling superior to people who focus on supporting their own communities).

You’ve “wondered” whether it’s actually preferable to help fewer people in less substantial and less cost-effective ways just because they happen to live near you?

What answer did you find in this inquiry?

Honestly I haven’t come to a conclusion. It sounds like you are well versed in EA principals and arguments so I’d be curious to hear your thoughts.

From my (admittedly shallow) understanding of effective altruism I question how well we can define the ‘effectivness’ of an action. I worry it prioritizes quantifiable metrics that are easy to compare over more diffuse benefits such as connection and personal bonds that are more difficult to measure (but equally important). For example I suspect you would argue it’s more cost effective to buy rice from an international supplier and feed 100 people than to use the same money to build a neighborhood garden with supplies from local businesses and feed a handful of people. But in one case the money remains in the community and continues to do good while in the other it simply further enriches an international conglomerate.

In one case you build community bonds and create a place for people to come together while in the other you potentially undercut the local suppliers, reducing the food supply in an area in the long term.

This is obviously a contrived hypothetical but I’m hoping you can read it in good faith and try to understand a different perspective.

I cannot think of a reason to prefer to help a neighbor over someone who is vastly more in need who is further away. I think that's the main thrust of the argument.

You have a better chance of knowing what would actually help the neighbor. That is, the odds of help actually helping are higher.

I am not saying "don't help those who are far away". But you can make a case for giving greater emphasis to helping those who are closer to you purely on effectiveness grounds.

In my mind the arguments for it are - by helping your neighbor you strengthen your own community, hopefully benefitting yourself and your family

- you don’t have the same understanding of the needs of a community further away. You won’t be able to directly observe the impact of your actions (positive or negative)

> If you benefit from the improvement in your community is it some how less valuable?

Yes. Its less valuable by definition because you are subtracting value from the system for yourself in the form of increased social standing.

There is a reason that charity should be anonymous. Its not charity otherwise, its quid quo pro.

I think your example is pretty much the definition of zero-sum thinking - why would a benefit to you automatically "subtract value from the system".

I would argue it's a positive sum transaction - the person you helped receives something of value, from a real human they know, strengthening the relationship between the two of you, others in the community see that and are encouraged to do the same, and the recipient feels a sense of obligation to at "pay it forward" any way they can leading to further "good works".

Have you really never received anything of value from someone who had no obligation to do so? Not even a lead on a new job, or an introduction to someone who helped your career, or a mentor? If so, do you really feel the situation would have been better if that information had arrived in an anonymous form?

I've thought this too.

Versus cash, I imagine healthcare is nice because it's not like warlord/agent can seize/embezzle all the cataract surgeries or whatever.

But there are no actual "ones they are saving". Effective Altruists are concerned with unrealized future values, like people thousands of years in the future who don't yet exist.

An Effective Altruist is someone who would throw a current, existing person under a bus, if he believed that this would somehow cause three more people to exist sometime in the far future, or help speed up human colonization of the galaxy.

Have you looked into what EA is really about?

Not true. Please explain this list of actually recommended problem areas which have impact today (as well as in the future):

https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/cause-areas

It looks suspiciously like the result of someone registering a domain, putting up a server and populating a page. Could be wrong.

Ah yes, if you go to EA’s “official” site then click “Take Action” that’s where it’ll take you. This is as close as you’ll get to an “official” list of endorsed causes, and it’s nothing like what’s being described in this thread.

https://www.effectivealtruism.org/

Yes I know that. That only makes it worse.

It’s obvious you’ve done zero research into what EA actually advocates in practice. Lay off the memes and secondary sources for a bit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com