I think there should be strong norms against making arguments that justify shifting resources from the least well-off people to the best-off people in the world. These types of ideas have been used by people in power to justify global inequality.
In 1991, Larry Summers, then the chief economist at the World Bank, sent a memo arguing that pollution should be pushed to poorer places because it’s more economically efficient. Around the same time, Texaco was leaving open pools of carcinogenic substances all over the Ecuadorian rainforest, which contributed to elevated cancer rates in the local population. There were ways to safely dispose of the toxic waste produced by oil drilling, but they weren’t employed because the lives of indigenous Ecuadorian people weren’t sufficiently valued by Texaco.
If Beckstead had added a parenthetical like “(However, it’s typically many orders of magnitude cheaper to save lives in poor countries than in rich countries),” I wouldn’t take the same issue with the quote.
I think it’s important for EA to promote high decoupling in intellectual spaces. You also have to consider that this is a philosophy dissertation, which is an almost maximally decoupling space.
Again, Beckstead could have made the exact same point while offering my parenthetical. It would have communicated the same idea while also acknowledging the real world context. I’m not opposed to decoupling or thought experiments to help clarify our positions on things.
Yes I think that Summers was wrong. Extending his logic, companies should take even fewer steps to mitigate pollution in industrial practices in poor countries than they do in rich countries, because the economic costs of doing so are lower in poor countries and because it’s probably cheaper and therefore more economically efficient to not mitigate pollution. He even says in the memo that moral reasons and social concerns could be invoked to oppose his line of reasoning, which seems relevant to people who claim to want to do good in the world, not just maximize a narrow understanding of economic productivity.
What that can look like in practice is what Texaco did in Ecuador. I’m not claiming a direct causal link between the Summers’ memo and Texaco’s actions. I’m simply saying that when intellectual elites make arguments that it’s okay to pollute more in poor countries, we shouldn’t be surprised when they do so.
I think there should be strong norms against making arguments that justify shifting resources from the least well-off people to the best-off people in the world. These types of ideas have been used by people in power to justify global inequality.
In 1991, Larry Summers, then the chief economist at the World Bank, sent a memo arguing that pollution should be pushed to poorer places because it’s more economically efficient. Around the same time, Texaco was leaving open pools of carcinogenic substances all over the Ecuadorian rainforest, which contributed to elevated cancer rates in the local population. There were ways to safely dispose of the toxic waste produced by oil drilling, but they weren’t employed because the lives of indigenous Ecuadorian people weren’t sufficiently valued by Texaco.
If Beckstead had added a parenthetical like “(However, it’s typically many orders of magnitude cheaper to save lives in poor countries than in rich countries),” I wouldn’t take the same issue with the quote.
I think it’s important for EA to promote high decoupling in intellectual spaces. You also have to consider that this is a philosophy dissertation, which is an almost maximally decoupling space.
Again, Beckstead could have made the exact same point while offering my parenthetical. It would have communicated the same idea while also acknowledging the real world context. I’m not opposed to decoupling or thought experiments to help clarify our positions on things.
Are you implying that Larry Summers was wrong or that Texaco’s actions were somehow his fault?
Yes I think that Summers was wrong. Extending his logic, companies should take even fewer steps to mitigate pollution in industrial practices in poor countries than they do in rich countries, because the economic costs of doing so are lower in poor countries and because it’s probably cheaper and therefore more economically efficient to not mitigate pollution. He even says in the memo that moral reasons and social concerns could be invoked to oppose his line of reasoning, which seems relevant to people who claim to want to do good in the world, not just maximize a narrow understanding of economic productivity.
What that can look like in practice is what Texaco did in Ecuador. I’m not claiming a direct causal link between the Summers’ memo and Texaco’s actions. I’m simply saying that when intellectual elites make arguments that it’s okay to pollute more in poor countries, we shouldn’t be surprised when they do so.