Would you let someone else decide the recipients of your donations because they had donated a kidney? Or would you think that your donations should go to whatever you had previously judged to have the greatest possible impact, and that the fact that a person has donated a kidney doesnât by itself tell you theyâre good at math, statistics, and sociological research?
The latter.
Obviously an EA should ignore kidney donations and focus on the numbers. So this only makes sense as a way to con irrational people into ultimately giving more money to EA causes. Which would be wrong.
I think one should not ignore kidney donations, but at the same time I would say one should ideally only do them if they contribute to a better world. I believe it would make sense for me to donate a kidney if it caused lots of donations to effective organisations, but I am not convinced this would happen. Kidney donations would also be more likely to increase donations to live-saving interventions than animal welfare or AI safety interventions, which are the ones I find most effective. Since I do not know whether saving lives is good/âbad, I would not see increased donations to e.g. GiveWellâs top charities as a good/âbad outcome of my kidney donation.
Also, recall the psychological screening that Scott describes in his article. How do you think the hospital panel would/âshould respond if you told them you were donating a kidney in order to gain social capital in philanthropic circles with the ultimate goal of gaining more control over the disbursement of charitable funds? I think they would deny you, and be correct to do so. You could lie to them, but Iâm going to assume you wouldnât.
Good point! I had not thought about that. I think one should not lie, but that most people would be happy with me doing it if it was in that context, so I would not worry so much about that. However, most people would not view such instrumental motives for donating a kidney with good eyes, so I would have to lie to many more people besides the ones in the panel! This would definitely worry me, as I think one should only do so blatantly if there is a very strong reason.
Personally, Iâd think they were somebody whose jaw needed multiple fractures.
I think this violent tone is very inappropriate.
Scott explicitly suggests that in terms of raw EA calculus, donating kidneys is not great. He didnât do it for maximal EV, he did it to feel good about himself. To that end, it might be desirable to have the norm that if you do donate a kidney, you donât tell people about it (except maybe family and very close friends). If it only makes sense in terms of feeling good about yourself, then being public about it isnât necessary (I appreciate that this doesnât necessarily apply to the goals of Scottâs post though).
The issue is that part of makes one feel good due to donating a kidney is that other people will know about it.
In the statement youâre replying to, I meant âignore whether someone has donated a kidney when evaluating how strongly to weight that personâs opinion of which charities one should support [and focus on the numbers].â
Kidney donations would also be more likely to increase donations to live-saving interventions than animal welfare or AI safety interventions
I donât know why you would think this. It seems silly to me to think about donating a kidney in terms of what kind of aggregate charitable response it would provoke. It just seems really unlikely that anyone has any good reason to think it would do anything one way or the other.
Or put it this way: the amount of extra charity you should expect is the amount one randomly selected human would perform over the course of 5 years. This is because what youâve actually done is bought some person 5 extra years of life, and maybe theyâll give to charity in that period, but also maybe not. Basically, if you think donating kidneys is +EV for charity, you really need to look into having children. You could easily generate hundreds of life-years that way. Plus instead of having a risky surgical procedure, you have sex with someone. Itâs clearly a dominant strategy.
I think one should not lie, but that most people would be happy with me doing it if it was in that context
I disagree. I think people would think you were crazy. Like the whole idea is crazy, so people who knew that was your plan wouldnât ask your opinion about which charities are good.
I think this violent tone is very inappropriate.
Itâs my honest reaction, so I think itâs a bad policy to go around concealing it. I would regard pressuring people to donate organs as among the most objectionable sort of abuse & exploitation you could possibly do to another person. I would feel very angry at someone who I knew was doing it. I would feel the urge to use violence against them. I might or might not actually do it, but the urge would be there. If someone else used violence against that person, Iâd feel like it was deserved and wouldnât judge the violence-user very harshly (all else being equal).
The fact that you consider my tone inappropriate suggests that you donât instinctively condemn the idea as strongly as I do. Like, I feel like if I were to say that I would have the urge to use violence against a rapist, fewer people would regard that as inappropriate. Iâm not saying this to condemn you. Iâm saying that if some action which you hypothetically might do would make other people angry enough to use violence against you, thatâs generally something you want to know. You shouldnât be critical of someone for telling you ahead of time what to expect. That person is providing something of value to you.
Keep in mind what I said about the screening. The hospital panel asks people whether anyone is pressuring them to donate. Obviously, the panel does this because if someone were pressuring the donor, that would be grounds to reject the donation. The medical profession views pressuring donors as unacceptable. This is probably a sign that as individuals, they view it as something deeply wrong and which makes them angry. It is also a sign that it is something that actually happens and that they need to actively guard against it.
To be clear, Iâm not threatening to punch anyone over the internet. But I think that if some conduct would make us angry enough to potentially use violence, there has to be some responsible way to let other people know this fact. Especially when (as seems to be the case here) itâs not transparently obvious that those other people already know.
In the statement youâre replying to, I meant âignore whether someone has donated a kidney when evaluating how strongly to weight that personâs opinion of which charities one should support [and focus on the numbers].â
That makes sense. Sorry for misinterpreting.
I donât know why you would think this. It seems silly to me to think about donating a kidney in terms of what kind of aggregate charitable response it would provoke. It just seems really unlikely that anyone has any good reason to think it would do anything one way or the other.
I broadly agree. I just asked my mother and brother whether they or other family members would donate more to my preferred effective charities if I donated a kidney:
My mother: displaying an appaled face, âof course notâ.
My brother: after laughing for a while, âI do not think that would matterâ.
Maybe their views would change with time, but I agree a priori we should not expect a meaninful increase in effective donations. Accounting for just family members, I certainly do not expect such eventual increase to be worth the money and time cost of the procedure. In hindsight, I also regret having bought books related to veganism and effective altruism to my family, which as far as I know no one read. I still endorse having conversations about these topics, though.
In my previous comment, I mostly meant that, conditional on the kidney donation affecting donations of other people, it would be more likely to increase their donations to global health and development than animal welfare and AI safety.
I disagree. I think people would think you were crazy. Like the whole idea is crazy, so people who knew that was your plan wouldnât ask your opinion about which charities are good.
Fair. However, after the initial reaction of thinking I am crazy (which also happened when I started a plant-based diet), people may come to understand my position (as also happened with my plant-based diet).
I think this violent tone is very inappropriate.
Thanks for your reply to this! Your initial comment looked bad without the context you provided in your reply just above, so I encourage you to give more context next time such that you are not misinterpreted.
Thanks for the comment!
The latter.
I think one should not ignore kidney donations, but at the same time I would say one should ideally only do them if they contribute to a better world. I believe it would make sense for me to donate a kidney if it caused lots of donations to effective organisations, but I am not convinced this would happen. Kidney donations would also be more likely to increase donations to live-saving interventions than animal welfare or AI safety interventions, which are the ones I find most effective. Since I do not know whether saving lives is good/âbad, I would not see increased donations to e.g. GiveWellâs top charities as a good/âbad outcome of my kidney donation.
Good point! I had not thought about that. I think one should not lie, but that most people would be happy with me doing it if it was in that context, so I would not worry so much about that. However, most people would not view such instrumental motives for donating a kidney with good eyes, so I would have to lie to many more people besides the ones in the panel! This would definitely worry me, as I think one should only do so blatantly if there is a very strong reason.
I think this violent tone is very inappropriate.
The issue is that part of makes one feel good due to donating a kidney is that other people will know about it.
In the statement youâre replying to, I meant âignore whether someone has donated a kidney when evaluating how strongly to weight that personâs opinion of which charities one should support [and focus on the numbers].â
I donât know why you would think this. It seems silly to me to think about donating a kidney in terms of what kind of aggregate charitable response it would provoke. It just seems really unlikely that anyone has any good reason to think it would do anything one way or the other.
Or put it this way: the amount of extra charity you should expect is the amount one randomly selected human would perform over the course of 5 years. This is because what youâve actually done is bought some person 5 extra years of life, and maybe theyâll give to charity in that period, but also maybe not. Basically, if you think donating kidneys is +EV for charity, you really need to look into having children. You could easily generate hundreds of life-years that way. Plus instead of having a risky surgical procedure, you have sex with someone. Itâs clearly a dominant strategy.
I disagree. I think people would think you were crazy. Like the whole idea is crazy, so people who knew that was your plan wouldnât ask your opinion about which charities are good.
Itâs my honest reaction, so I think itâs a bad policy to go around concealing it. I would regard pressuring people to donate organs as among the most objectionable sort of abuse & exploitation you could possibly do to another person. I would feel very angry at someone who I knew was doing it. I would feel the urge to use violence against them. I might or might not actually do it, but the urge would be there. If someone else used violence against that person, Iâd feel like it was deserved and wouldnât judge the violence-user very harshly (all else being equal).
The fact that you consider my tone inappropriate suggests that you donât instinctively condemn the idea as strongly as I do. Like, I feel like if I were to say that I would have the urge to use violence against a rapist, fewer people would regard that as inappropriate. Iâm not saying this to condemn you. Iâm saying that if some action which you hypothetically might do would make other people angry enough to use violence against you, thatâs generally something you want to know. You shouldnât be critical of someone for telling you ahead of time what to expect. That person is providing something of value to you.
Keep in mind what I said about the screening. The hospital panel asks people whether anyone is pressuring them to donate. Obviously, the panel does this because if someone were pressuring the donor, that would be grounds to reject the donation. The medical profession views pressuring donors as unacceptable. This is probably a sign that as individuals, they view it as something deeply wrong and which makes them angry. It is also a sign that it is something that actually happens and that they need to actively guard against it.
To be clear, Iâm not threatening to punch anyone over the internet. But I think that if some conduct would make us angry enough to potentially use violence, there has to be some responsible way to let other people know this fact. Especially when (as seems to be the case here) itâs not transparently obvious that those other people already know.
That makes sense. Sorry for misinterpreting.
I broadly agree. I just asked my mother and brother whether they or other family members would donate more to my preferred effective charities if I donated a kidney:
My mother: displaying an appaled face, âof course notâ.
My brother: after laughing for a while, âI do not think that would matterâ.
Maybe their views would change with time, but I agree a priori we should not expect a meaninful increase in effective donations. Accounting for just family members, I certainly do not expect such eventual increase to be worth the money and time cost of the procedure. In hindsight, I also regret having bought books related to veganism and effective altruism to my family, which as far as I know no one read. I still endorse having conversations about these topics, though.
In my previous comment, I mostly meant that, conditional on the kidney donation affecting donations of other people, it would be more likely to increase their donations to global health and development than animal welfare and AI safety.
Fair. However, after the initial reaction of thinking I am crazy (which also happened when I started a plant-based diet), people may come to understand my position (as also happened with my plant-based diet).
Thanks for your reply to this! Your initial comment looked bad without the context you provided in your reply just above, so I encourage you to give more context next time such that you are not misinterpreted.