Putting a hold on helping people in poverty because of concern about insect rights is insulting to people who live in poverty and epitomises ivory-tower thinking that gets the Effective Altruism community so heavily criticised.
Saying âfurther research would be goodâ is easy because it is always true. Doing that research or waiting for it to be done is not always practical. I think you are being extremely unreasonable if, before helping someone die of malaria you ask for research to be done on:
the long term impacts of bednets on population growth
the effects of population growth on deforestation
the effects of deforestation on insect populations and welfare
I have a general disdain for criticizing arguments as ivory-tower thinking without engaging with the content itself. I think it is an ineffective way of communication which leaves room for quite a lot of non-central fallacy. The same ivory tower thinkings you identified were also quite important at promoting moral progress with careful reflections. I donât think considering animals as deserving moral attention is naturally an insulting position. Perhaps a better way of approaching this question will be to actually consider whether or not this trade-off is worth it.
p.s I donât think the post called for a stop of GiveWellâs act of giving. The research questions you identified are important decision relevant open-ended questions which will aid GiveWellâs research. Perhaps not all of it can be solved, but it doesnât mean that we shouldnât consider devoting a reasonable amount of resources to researching these questions. Iâm a firm believer in world-view diversification. The comparative probably isnât that GiveWell will stop helping someone die of malaria, but they may lower their recommendations for said program/âor offer recommendations to make existing interventions more effective with an account for these new moral considerations.
I agree with you that criticising arguments without engaging with the content is bad. I do however probably agree with this statement.
âPutting a hold on helping people in poverty because of concern about insect rights is insulting to people who live in poverty and epitomises ivory-tower thinking that gets the Effective Altruism community so heavily criticised.â
I think that living a rich lifestyle in a western country, while saying that Givewellâs projects which help lift people out of poverty could be very harmful because of potential harm to insects is probably insulting to poor people, whether the argument is right or wrong. This also definitely gets the EA community heavily criticised.
And you say that the post doesnât call for a stop on GiverWellâs act of giving, yet he suggests. âI would say focussing on longtermist interventions is better, as their (longterm) effects are more predictable.â, which seems to lean in that direction.
I think a better approach due to the great uncertainty is to research things like terrestrial suffering, before referring to givewell or other types of giving. Why be potentially insulting or get the community criticised when you can encourage more research and thought without necessarily bringing global health and development into the question?
Thanks for commenting, Henry. I do feel you are pointing to something valuable. FWIW, I am confused about the implications of my analysis too. Somewhat relatedly, I liked this post from Michelle Hutchinson.
Putting a hold on helping people in poverty because of concern about insect rights is insulting to people who live in poverty and epitomises ivory-tower thinking that gets the Effective Altruism community so heavily criticised.
Saying âfurther research would be goodâ is easy because it is always true. Doing that research or waiting for it to be done is not always practical. I think you are being extremely unreasonable if, before helping someone die of malaria you ask for research to be done on:
the long term impacts of bednets on population growth
the effects of population growth on deforestation
the effects of deforestation on insect populations and welfare
specific quantification of insect suffering
I have a general disdain for criticizing arguments as ivory-tower thinking without engaging with the content itself. I think it is an ineffective way of communication which leaves room for quite a lot of non-central fallacy. The same ivory tower thinkings you identified were also quite important at promoting moral progress with careful reflections. I donât think considering animals as deserving moral attention is naturally an insulting position. Perhaps a better way of approaching this question will be to actually consider whether or not this trade-off is worth it.
p.s I donât think the post called for a stop of GiveWellâs act of giving. The research questions you identified are important decision relevant open-ended questions which will aid GiveWellâs research. Perhaps not all of it can be solved, but it doesnât mean that we shouldnât consider devoting a reasonable amount of resources to researching these questions. Iâm a firm believer in world-view diversification. The comparative probably isnât that GiveWell will stop helping someone die of malaria, but they may lower their recommendations for said program/âor offer recommendations to make existing interventions more effective with an account for these new moral considerations.
I agree with you that criticising arguments without engaging with the content is bad. I do however probably agree with this statement.
âPutting a hold on helping people in poverty because of concern about insect rights is insulting to people who live in poverty and epitomises ivory-tower thinking that gets the Effective Altruism community so heavily criticised.â
I think that living a rich lifestyle in a western country, while saying that Givewellâs projects which help lift people out of poverty could be very harmful because of potential harm to insects is probably insulting to poor people, whether the argument is right or wrong. This also definitely gets the EA community heavily criticised.
And you say that the post doesnât call for a stop on GiverWellâs act of giving, yet he suggests.
âI would say focussing on longtermist interventions is better, as their (longterm) effects are more predictable.â, which seems to lean in that direction.
I think a better approach due to the great uncertainty is to research things like terrestrial suffering, before referring to givewell or other types of giving. Why be potentially insulting or get the community criticised when you can encourage more research and thought without necessarily bringing global health and development into the question?
Thanks for commenting, Henry. I do feel you are pointing to something valuable. FWIW, I am confused about the implications of my analysis too. Somewhat relatedly, I liked this post from Michelle Hutchinson.