
The ‘effective altruists’ - akbarnama
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n18/amia-srinivasan/stop-the-robot-apocalypse
======
msilenus
I've read this book together with the two books about Effective Altruism bei
Peter Singer (The Life You Can Save and The Most Good You Can Do), and I have
to say these books have really changed my life. I know it sounds cheesy, but
I've never read books that had such a lasting influence on me.

Those books provide just the right rational and scientific arguments and have
shown me with how much cognitive dissonance I, as a supposed rational person,
ran through my life.

~~~
a3voices
I'd argue that being an effective altruist actually makes you less rational.
As part of your genetic fitness, your brain is optimized for survival,
reproduction, and keeping your children alive. If you're in the middle class
and you give your money away then it goes against those objectives.

~~~
edanm
The objectives of "your genes" do not have to be your objectives. So you can
be rational, but have different goals from what you were "meant" to (for some
value of the word "meant").

~~~
a3voices
Well perhaps that is true but then you will experience a lot more mental
incongruity. For example, gay and transgendered people have much higher
suicide attempt rates. The more you deviate from traditional family values,
the unhappier you will likely feel. There is a big correlation I bet.

~~~
edanm
I don't think what you're saying is true re: mental incongruity.

And I don't think your example of gay suicides proves it, as it's hard to know
what is the cause (and many people will point out, and I would agree, that
there are _many_ other causes of gay suicides, e.g. that our culture is
oppressive toward gay people).

------
dmvaldman
What I like about the effective altruist movement is the research they
provide.

What I don't like is the cultish behavior, and inherent bias that what I think
is good is "universally" good. Effective altruism is nothing more than a
rebranding of utilitarianism, and suffers from the same moral quandaries.

Should I kill someone if it is the best way to decrease child mortality rates
in Africa?

Should we all quit our jobs to solve friendly AI? Because if not there is a
non-negligible probability of human extinction, and the math clearly says this
should be our top priority.

I think it's healthy to be aware of the short comings of effective altruism as
well as its benefits. Morality and duty are too nuanced for a single ideology
to provide all the answers.

Edit: wording

~~~
darkmighty
I don't get what people have against utility theory (if that's what you mean
by utilitarianism). For me it's one of the few models that _must_ be obeyed:
there _must_ be a way to create a partial order among possible choices.

Whatever the reasoning behind your actions is, you are going to choose _a
single action_ (at each step) -- this _forces_ you to choose the best. That's
all utilitarianism is for me -- it tells you nothing about how to construct
the utility function. Now the utility this view provides is just that: you can
see clearly what sorts of thing you give greater priority, so you'll make the
best possible judgement.

~~~
pdonis
_> Whatever the reasoning behind your actions is, you are going to choose a
single action (at each step) -- this forces you to choose the best._

This works at the level of individual choice, but it doesn't add up over
multiple individuals, because you can't compare different people's utilities
on the same scale. But the key claims of utilitarianism under discussion (the
ones that are supposed to motivate people to donate to charity instead of
purchasing luxuries for themselves) require adding up utilities over multiple
individuals. Your argument doesn't justify utilitarianism in that sense.

~~~
darkmighty
I agree that you can't necessarily add up utilities over multiple individuals,
but you can naturally claim that a "good" individual utility takes into
account the well being of others, and if the utility of each action is unique
you may say there's a composing function g such that your utility
u(a=action,t1=actor 1) is also a function of the utility for other people
u(a,t1)=f(a,g(u(a,t2),...,u(a,tN))).

I also think utility can makes sense when there's a set of actors looking
forward to make a set of decisions. Again, this set of decisions is going to
be unique. So if those actors are able to 1) achieve consensus on a utility 2)
coordinate their actions according to said utility, then it also makes sense
to talk in terms of a joint utility theory.

~~~
pdonis
_> you can naturally claim that a "good" individual utility takes into account
the well being of others_

That's not the same as utilities of multiple individuals adding, or otherwise
being composed into a single utility function. The "good" individual's utility
function can certainly depend on that individual's _beliefs_ about how his
actions will affect the well-being of others; but it can't depend on the
actual utility of those others, because the "good" individual doesn't know the
actual utility to others of various states of the world.

 _> if those actors are able to 1) achieve consensus on a utility 2)
coordinate their actions according to said utility, then it also makes sense
to talk in terms of a joint utility theory._

I agree with this, but I think the necessary conditions for it are very rare.
In most cases of collective action, the actors do not have consensus on a
utility function and do not coordinate their actions according to a single
utility function.

In fact, in most cases the actors probably do not even share a common or
compatible set of beliefs about factual things. In US politics, for example,
you have members of Congress who are young earth creationists alongside other
members who believe standard evolutionary theory.

------
nefitty
Peter Singer's work has influenced my life in a big way. I have taken the 10%
income to charity pledge and am on track this year to hit it(I calculate it
every week as my income may begin varying weekly).

My charity of choice is Schistomiasis Initiative, which I donate to through
GiveWell. The Life You Can Save has a satisfying "Impact Calculator" that can
help you visualize what good your money is capable of doing
[http://www.thelifeyoucansave.org](http://www.thelifeyoucansave.org)

I urge everyone here to really consider taking the pledge and begin diverting
at least some of their income to effective charities. I am now also
considering donating a fraction of my 10% to AI research. (Tip: Don't set up
automatic donations if doing it yourself manually every month isn't too much
of a hassle. The good vibes are definitely worth soaking in!)

~~~
asgard1024
> I urge everyone here to really consider taking the pledge and begin
> diverting at least some of their income to effective charities.

I wasn't aware of Peter Singer etc., but I was actually independently
considering doing the same thing (also 10%). But to be honest, I still fight
with my worries - I am not sure about the local culture (Czech Republic), many
people here still believe "who doesn't steal, steals from the family", and I
worry that some of my friends/family will not like the idea. Although it may
be completely unfounded fear or rationalization (I have a fair share of social
anxiety).

~~~
nefitty
I sympathize. I've actually had some negative reactions from close family as
well. Thoase reactions are hurtful but I believe this choice to be the right
thing to do. I now rarely speak about my charitable gifts, unless questions of
ethics or beliefs arise in conversation. There's nothing wrong with keeping
your giving to yourself if that makes you feel more comfortable!

------
stared
Is it only me, who would prefer to have the phrase "efficient altruists"
rather than "effective altruists"?

In the context of sciences, "effective X" usually means "something that is not
X, but in the effect acts as X" (e.g. "effective potential"). So, I when I
first met the phrase "effective altruism" I was thinking it is something in
the line of Ayn Rand or so - that we should be egoistic, but (some) egoistic
behaviours are effectively altruistic. While "how to do as much X given fixed
amount of resources?" is talking about being "efficient".

~~~
vog
To my understanding, "effective" also means to have an impact, while
"efficient" focuses more on the ratio impact/resources.

In that way, I find the wording "effective" better suited. It means the
maximum impact given your resources, while for "efficient" it would be okay to
have 80% of the effect if you get that for just 70% of your resources.

~~~
stared
I understand that "effective" has also this meaning. But, as I pointed out, is
ambiguous, with the "default" meaning being very different (not just subtly)
from the intended one.

Especially as, in evolutionary biology, and game theory, there is a big topic
of investigating how egoistic behaviour may give raise to an altruistic
effect.

(And of course, the main thing is that adjectives created from nouns are very
ambiguous, i.e. effective can mean both "altruism that gives effect" or
"altruism that is an effect".)

------
vinceguidry
I have trouble both with Effective Altruists' claims that they can actually
quantify human well-being to the point to where if you spend $X, you'll get $Y
benefit out of it, and without that, the entire point is lost.

Even if you could, with a fair amount of certainty, say that for every $40
that the Yurt charity gets, they'll build 3 homes, there's a pretty hard limit
on how many $40's they'll be able to turn into homes. Eventually they'll run
out of qualified people willing to build homes for peanuts. Charity simply
doesn't scale. The more you try, the more it just looks like regular old
business.

EA could very well be a viable philosophy at the low volumes that participate
right now, but if they're successful as a movement, whatever they build is
just going to turn into another Red Cross. The Red Cross couldn't scale
appropriately, and I highly doubt it was due to any lack of can-do
willingness.

------
amelius
There is also a TED talk by Peter Singer: "The why and how of effective
altruism" [1]

[1]
[http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_singer_the_why_and_how_of_eff...](http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_singer_the_why_and_how_of_effective_altruism)

~~~
dan00
Looking it, one suggestion came up, that you should go for a career where you
can earn as much as possible, because then you could gave more money away, use
it for something good.

So finance came up and I'm not gonna to say, that finance is by definition
evil, but I can see quite some bad things coming out of finance, just think
about all the trading with food, which painfully increased prices especially
for the poorest people in the third world. Not to speak about the effects of
the financial crises and their reasons.

I was just quite surprised about this kind of thinking, this kind of
simplification and to think of this as the most effective kind of altruism
seems to be a bit blinded.

~~~
Avshalom
>Looking it, one suggestion came up, that you should go for a career where you
can earn as much as possible, because then you could gave more money away, use
it for something good.

That one comes up a lot and the fundamental problem is that nobody actually
does it. People start careers with the intention of doing it but hedonistic
treadmill/peer-pressure seems to wring it out of them sooner rather than
later.

Even ignoring, as you point out negative externalities, it's just bad advice
to suggest that doing something that no one seems capable of carrying though
with is a good way to affect positive change.

~~~
dan00
Yes, that's certainly a good point.

What if someone really wants to go into finance, likes its money and prestige
and now he might be even able, thanks to effective altruism, to appease his
morally doubts.

------
XzetaU8
"Pathological Altruism"

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873246884045785455...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324688404578545523824389986)

