I regret damaging my argument by perhaps unrecognisable satire. And I meant to [satirically] allege 500 thread count sheets, not towels. Whether or not the flights were business class it’s that vs Zoom. And look, the hotel had a pool, yes? And fine dining means different things to different people, but the cost of the meals were likely about the same as the Michelin starred restaurant near me which I must start to frequent so I can think better how to be effectively altruistic. If that is satire I hope it’s hard hitting.
I am sorry to improperly or ambiguously identify the “charity”. It’s the Centre for Effective Altruism [UK 1149828]. I’ve amended my post to make that clear.
Thank you, I appreciate the clarification (and therefore upvoted your most recent comment).
(And yes, I think the hotel had a pool.)
Regarding the meals, I’m not sure if I ever ate in a Michelin-starred restaurant, but I looked up the prices at a Michelin-starred restaurant near Oxford (where I live), and it seems like a main course there is about twice as expensive as one in the restaurant attached to the relevant Bahamas hotel. (If I remember correctly, I had about two meals in that restaurant over the course of ~3 weeks. The other meals were catered office food of in my view lower ‘fanciness’ than what you get at the main EA office in Oxford or PlennyBars that I had brought from home.)
More broadly, it seems like we have pretty strong empirical and perhaps also value-based disagreements about when spending money can increase future impact sufficiently to be worth it.
I was not criticising any one particular event or any one person’s conduct. Indeed, I gave two examples of sponsorhip/bribe I would not accept.
One was a Bahamas Business-Class 5-star Fine Dining. I’m amazed that something like this actually occurs, the repudiation of this example of mine is that “it wasn’t quite as nice as that” but it was pretty damn fine.
The second example was the Bracknell 2nd-Class rail 2*star hotel pizza restaurant. Accepting a charity’s money for that is also unacceptable. It does seem the real Bahamas event which actually happened was almost as expensive as I posited (within a factor of 2, anyway) and much much more expensive (10 times?) than my Bracknell example, but such comparison is not made by anyone here other than me.
Michelin stars are awarded for fine dining, not on menu pricing. There are plenty of hotels which are nowhere near 5-star standard with restaurant prices exceeding those of my local Michelin starred restaurant. The point being made is that eating at such a place does not improve the effectiveness of one’s altruism. Indeed, it must have a negative impact, because mid-priced or more expensive that’s a charity’s money your accepting for fois gras instead of that money being spent on mosquito nets.
Such is the tone here that I expect the mention of fois gras to be the one that provokes response rather than the similarly forced feeding of the similarly willing [the geese volunteer too] EA bribe takers.
That my comments are voted down so heavily here shows maybe the ineptitude and rudeness of my writings, or it shows something else. Too many people want to be on this gravy train and are not being self-critical.
For what it’s worth, as someone that donates most of his income and is really uncomfortable around free-spending and fancy events, I think there are indeed some important concerns around this topic. I am grateful for parts of your comments.
But your focus on factually wrong examples, and even more so the very judgemental/aggressive wording in this comment (the worst one yet), is really hurting the argument and making it impossible to have a conversation :(
Could you try to tone it down and make it less emotionally charged, focusing more on your main point than on insults and arguments about Michelin-starred restaurants that no one is dining at?
I was right[, almost]. The issue becomes not the misuse of funds, it’s me saying [not “fois gras” but] “Michelin”.
Again, the examples were never meant to be read as what actually occurred any one event. But that my deliberately hyperbolic example is identified so very closely with a real actual event just makes my point even more strongly. OK, I got the colour of the wallpaper wrong, sorry, but there really was an all expenses paid luxury jolly to the Bahamas. It’s a scandal.
I note no one complains about the other factually wrong (because it too was made up) example about the much much cheaper 2-star plus pizza Bracknell event.
Again: I said there were two styles of event I would not be bribed to attend. Not only would I not attend the fine dining etc etc event, I would not attend the pizza etc etc one either. The response: “I wouldn’t call the [actual] Bahamas event fine dining.” “The towels weren’t unusually fine.” “I didn’t travel Business Class.”
Frankly it seems I don’t know anywhere near the extent of all this abuse of funds. This is just the tip of the iceberg. This is what happens to money you (if the cap fits etc) solicit from me.
Some people are uncomfortable being associated in any way with this. What is the behaviour modification required? Mine! How about a more general expression of discomfort from more people about this so-called effective so-called altruism? Silence is acquiescence.
So it’s absolutely not money that was solicited from donors, or that someone donated thinking it would go to other causes.
I understand your shock and rage if you thought it was money donated for malaria bednets being misused, but that’s definitely not the case. The negative/adversarial language definitely did not help clearing this earlier.
I regret damaging my argument by perhaps unrecognisable satire. And I meant to [satirically] allege 500 thread count sheets, not towels. Whether or not the flights were business class it’s that vs Zoom. And look, the hotel had a pool, yes? And fine dining means different things to different people, but the cost of the meals were likely about the same as the Michelin starred restaurant near me which I must start to frequent so I can think better how to be effectively altruistic. If that is satire I hope it’s hard hitting.
I am sorry to improperly or ambiguously identify the “charity”. It’s the Centre for Effective Altruism [UK 1149828]. I’ve amended my post to make that clear.
Thank you, I appreciate the clarification (and therefore upvoted your most recent comment).
(And yes, I think the hotel had a pool.)
Regarding the meals, I’m not sure if I ever ate in a Michelin-starred restaurant, but I looked up the prices at a Michelin-starred restaurant near Oxford (where I live), and it seems like a main course there is about twice as expensive as one in the restaurant attached to the relevant Bahamas hotel. (If I remember correctly, I had about two meals in that restaurant over the course of ~3 weeks. The other meals were catered office food of in my view lower ‘fanciness’ than what you get at the main EA office in Oxford or PlennyBars that I had brought from home.)
More broadly, it seems like we have pretty strong empirical and perhaps also value-based disagreements about when spending money can increase future impact sufficiently to be worth it.
I was not criticising any one particular event or any one person’s conduct. Indeed, I gave two examples of sponsorhip/bribe I would not accept.
One was a Bahamas Business-Class 5-star Fine Dining. I’m amazed that something like this actually occurs, the repudiation of this example of mine is that “it wasn’t quite as nice as that” but it was pretty damn fine.
The second example was the Bracknell 2nd-Class rail 2*star hotel pizza restaurant. Accepting a charity’s money for that is also unacceptable. It does seem the real Bahamas event which actually happened was almost as expensive as I posited (within a factor of 2, anyway) and much much more expensive (10 times?) than my Bracknell example, but such comparison is not made by anyone here other than me.
Michelin stars are awarded for fine dining, not on menu pricing. There are plenty of hotels which are nowhere near 5-star standard with restaurant prices exceeding those of my local Michelin starred restaurant. The point being made is that eating at such a place does not improve the effectiveness of one’s altruism. Indeed, it must have a negative impact, because mid-priced or more expensive that’s a charity’s money your accepting for fois gras instead of that money being spent on mosquito nets.
Such is the tone here that I expect the mention of fois gras to be the one that provokes response rather than the similarly forced feeding of the similarly willing [the geese volunteer too] EA bribe takers.
That my comments are voted down so heavily here shows maybe the ineptitude and rudeness of my writings, or it shows something else. Too many people want to be on this gravy train and are not being self-critical.
For what it’s worth, as someone that donates most of his income and is really uncomfortable around free-spending and fancy events, I think there are indeed some important concerns around this topic. I am grateful for parts of your comments.
But your focus on factually wrong examples, and even more so the very judgemental/aggressive wording in this comment (the worst one yet), is really hurting the argument and making it impossible to have a conversation :(
Could you try to tone it down and make it less emotionally charged, focusing more on your main point than on insults and arguments about Michelin-starred restaurants that no one is dining at?
I was right[, almost]. The issue becomes not the misuse of funds, it’s me saying [not “fois gras” but] “Michelin”.
Again, the examples were never meant to be read as what actually occurred any one event. But that my deliberately hyperbolic example is identified so very closely with a real actual event just makes my point even more strongly. OK, I got the colour of the wallpaper wrong, sorry, but there really was an all expenses paid luxury jolly to the Bahamas. It’s a scandal.
I note no one complains about the other factually wrong (because it too was made up) example about the much much cheaper 2-star plus pizza Bracknell event.
Again: I said there were two styles of event I would not be bribed to attend. Not only would I not attend the fine dining etc etc event, I would not attend the pizza etc etc one either. The response: “I wouldn’t call the [actual] Bahamas event fine dining.” “The towels weren’t unusually fine.” “I didn’t travel Business Class.”
Frankly it seems I don’t know anywhere near the extent of all this abuse of funds. This is just the tip of the iceberg. This is what happens to money you (if the cap fits etc) solicit from me.
Some people are uncomfortable being associated in any way with this. What is the behaviour modification required? Mine! How about a more general expression of discomfort from more people about this so-called effective so-called altruism? Silence is acquiescence.
I think there was an unfortunate misunderstanding. There was indeed an event in the Bahamas that had already been somewhat criticized, and people assumed you were referring to it.
I don’t know the details, but it was funded by the Bahamas billionaire Sam_Bankman-Fried FTX foundation, https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/sdjcH7KAxgB328RAb/ftx-ea-fellowships
So it’s absolutely not money that was solicited from donors, or that someone donated thinking it would go to other causes.
I understand your shock and rage if you thought it was money donated for malaria bednets being misused, but that’s definitely not the case. The negative/adversarial language definitely did not help clearing this earlier.
Am I reading the situation correctly?