I’ll bet those victims didn’t do so well on an IQ test the day after their lives were destroyed.
This race-determines-IQ-determines-worthiness thread is one in a long line of sophisticated arguments that intellectuals have comfortably made for centuries and much more (c.f. Buckminster Fuller: the great pirates and the invention of the university) (c.f. General Robert E Lee weeping for the suffering of the slave owners.)
The goal is to make the elite comfortable and justified in profitable repression.
I honestly welcome someone to explain why EA, a great concept in principle, is not in part a smokescreen for the same old racket. Thanks, everyone, for the chance to participate in the discussion.
I’d argue that at least until the advent of Longtermism, the actions taken in practice by EAs were mostly about transferring wealth and welfare from rich Westerners to the poor in Africa and Asia. This is still the case for a majority of EA funding (although the gap is narrowing).
You could counterargue that all of philanthropy is a smokescreen to protect the rich while giving a semblance of improving the problems of the poor. I agree in principle, but in practice I think there’s a trade-off between applying this reasoning to intra-country vs. inter-country inequality: money that Western rich individuals give as taxes almost entirely remains within rich Western rich countries. You can use funds to lobby Western governments to increase foreign aid (and it’s been done by EAs in Zürich and in the UK, for example), but that would still: (a) require funds, and (b) take the agency from the already-powerless recipients. So again, it’s a trade-off in terms of justice.
Just reading today about the razing of an entire Black community in Palm Springs, 60 years ago. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/15/california-palm-springs-section-14-homes-burned-survivors-justice?amp;amp;amp “Their houses had burned, sometimes with their belongings inside – no time to evacuate or no place to go.” This is one of many examples of the destruction of Black communities, of lives, generational wealth, culture. Throughout American history: Elaine, Tulsa, Rosewood, Wilmington, … many more.
I’ll bet those victims didn’t do so well on an IQ test the day after their lives were destroyed.
This race-determines-IQ-determines-worthiness thread is one in a long line of sophisticated arguments that intellectuals have comfortably made for centuries and much more (c.f. Buckminster Fuller: the great pirates and the invention of the university) (c.f. General Robert E Lee weeping for the suffering of the slave owners.)
The goal is to make the elite comfortable and justified in profitable repression.
I honestly welcome someone to explain why EA, a great concept in principle, is not in part a smokescreen for the same old racket. Thanks, everyone, for the chance to participate in the discussion.
I’d argue that at least until the advent of Longtermism, the actions taken in practice by EAs were mostly about transferring wealth and welfare from rich Westerners to the poor in Africa and Asia. This is still the case for a majority of EA funding (although the gap is narrowing).
You could counterargue that all of philanthropy is a smokescreen to protect the rich while giving a semblance of improving the problems of the poor. I agree in principle, but in practice I think there’s a trade-off between applying this reasoning to intra-country vs. inter-country inequality: money that Western rich individuals give as taxes almost entirely remains within rich Western rich countries. You can use funds to lobby Western governments to increase foreign aid (and it’s been done by EAs in Zürich and in the UK, for example), but that would still: (a) require funds, and (b) take the agency from the already-powerless recipients. So again, it’s a trade-off in terms of justice.