I found effective altruism in July 2021. Read everything I could, learned as much as I could. Pediatrician working in low resource settings, now completed Masters in global health policy, because I wanted to help more people.
LiaH
Karma: 140
Promoting Simple Altruism
I agree! With both your points on renaming it “altruistic intent”, and the reasons behind.
I thought perhaps improving altruistic intent must be somewhere under the EA radar, but in the very superficial reading I have done to date, I had not found it. I will look more specifically now at broad longtermism. To be honest, I was also hoping the EA community had more skills in persuasion and politics, and was already working on it.
Finally, thank you for acknowledging my neophyte attempts on a front page post. It took a lot of internal debate and self-talk to write it ;)
Yes, these are all sound counterpoints. Together, they suggest the idea is at least, neglected. I think your point 2 was also made by Stefan_Schubert in a comment above. I would be very interested to see research in the area, if there is any. I agree your points 1&3 are a problem if the number of altruistic people were finite, but what if everyone behaved altruistically, to the benefit of others? To the point that it would not matter if some people chose to donate to seeing eye dog charities?
I can appreciate your argument that promoting general altruism might not fit under EA banner, specifically because it lacks the “effective” intent, but I would argue that it could be one of the “hits based”, fat-tailed investments EA has been seeking. What if it were tractable and scalable to make people generally nicer to each other, and desire to help each other, non-human animals, the environment, and the future, impartially?
Yes! All this, and it was better summarized by you, thank you. I am looking for these answers.
Interesting metaphor. More interesting is that your summary of Equity as the only endeavour on this ship which does not have a drawback, and which is supportive of the other efforts; could Equity support an Afghan girl to be a gifted Navigator, or more athletic Rowers to move the ship forward? Why would we not try? At the moment there are three Captains who are bickering
A Case for Improving Global Equity as Radical Longtermism
Thank you, I have read the Global Health and Wellbeing portfolio and listened to Alexander Berger’s podcast, but I am still left with the question, are they doing enough? Are their causes sufficiently broad? Have they left stones unturned? What innovative cause has been missed? I can’t help but think this is a too-easy dismissal of the circumstance, and risks missing opportunities to save lives in very effective cause areas
Yes, I agree on the point that interventions are best assessed with cost-benefit analysis, rather than propping up inefficient institutions. I was not necessarily suggesting support for WHO, only indicating that the purported leader in global health is spending more time fundraising than leading.
I, perhaps mistakenly, thought EA, particularly Open Phil, was about funding high risk, low yield, but fat tail causes, vs the “sure thing” that Give Well funds.
For pandemic risk, what about funding campaigns to back the TRIPs waiver proposal for all pandemic vaccines?
For people of conflict-affected countries, what about supporting impartial organizations which can access people in need? Advocate for impartial access? The latter would scale well, if effective, because the entire southern Afghanistan is unvaccinated against every childhood disease, not just COVID.
I agree with you, when the root cause of suffering is political, the solution is complicated, and improving the political system would be costly and ineffective. This is why I think the creativity of the EA community could be so beneficial, by seeking other solutions.
How is effective altruism compatible with capitalism?
I understood effective altruism is about doing the most good for the most people (sentient beings). The purpose of capitalism is control of industry by private owners, for profit. I cannot reconcile the two purposes if fairness/equity is considered.
Agree with your concern that waiving IP rights is disincentive for pharmaceutical industry to R&D future medicines and vaccines, but it does not negate the fact that vaccines in a pandemic are a global public good. It is about human rights.
Regarding the financial status of the vaccine companies, half of Pfizer’s record-setting revenue in 2021 were from their vaccine.
Although I agree fundamentally with the OP’s suggestion for a fully public vaccine development, a concession might be a one year limit on TRIPs patents for vaccine, allowing profit before sharing the tech.
True, my mistake. Herd immunity is the public good. I would still suggest vaccines are the cheapest, safest, fastest, most equitable route to herd immunity.
Are economists the right people to ask?
It does. I am impressed.
I only have issue with the semantics of your first sentence. I would suggest no large-scale economic system has ever existed that was successful at maximizing human wellbeing; I think socialist ideals intend to maximize human welfare, but have always failed in implementation. I might say the same for the great religions, though, excellent analogy.
Thank you for taking the time.
You have an interesting idea; if socialist theories have a lot in common with EA thinkers, but have consistently failed, can EA create/devise a governance system that works better? Maybe this is a rhetorical question, but I would sure love to hear from EAs who know history and politics better than I do. From my perspective also as a non-historian, the failures seem to have been in the leadership.
This an inspiring project, and one I have wondered why EA has not addressed before now. I assume the IP rights will be waived to increase the ability to scale? Giving up IP rights is so much more valuable than giving hours and money, and seems to me to be EA aligned.
A parallel project to consider would be evaluation of trust in vaccines in LMICs. I have seen full lots of vaccines wasted in LICs because people do not trust the government, big pharma, health care workers, etc. It may be exclusive to the conflict zones in which I have worked, but vaccine refusal was at least as big a problem as lack of vaccines. Vaccines only work if they are used.
Be that as it may, removal of IP barriers still makes pharmaceuticals more accessible; IP barriers were one of the main reasons for lack of access to HIV/AIDS medications, before they were challenged. I do not see a good reason for EA projects to withhold patent rights, if the purpose of creating the vaccine is doing the most good for the most people. A donation of patent rights is a donation of time and money.
What is the general EA view on intellectual property rights? Based on the downvotes I get for advocating TRIPs waivers for vaccines, there are at least some on the forum who value IP rights. Why? What is the rationale?
yes, I agree EAs have different opinions; I was seeking to understand the one I do not follow. Maybe asking for the “general” EA view was the wrong phrasing.
Your reply explains well why an individual or small organization might want to protect patent rights to capitalize, or at the very least preserve investment, to allow for future R&D.
Where I cannot understand the purpose of securing IP rights, is in situations where there is philanthropic money to fund the R&D. If philanthropists fund the original R&D, then “someone else can come along and copy whatever it is you spent time and money developing—and sell it at a cheaper cost since they didn’t have to pay for most of the research and development”, which would ultimately provide the product to more people at a lesser cost.
The other situation I don’t understand the protection of IP rights is for the transnational pharmaceutical corporations in pandemics. Vaccines seem to be the most equitable and effective means (vs closures, restricted travel and trade, or the alternative, unmitigated spread of disease) to save lives and shorten pandemics. While the rapid R&D of mRNA vaccines must have been expensive, the major vaccine producers received public and donated funds for their development, via PPP. Pfizer reported revenue for 2021 of double the prior year, primarily due to vaccine revenue. Their R&D was both funded up front, and presumably recouped. At what level of profit should lives take precedence?
Thanks for your comment, and thanks for the excellent paper! I don’t disagree with any of it. I am, perhaps, disappointed that you feel improving general altruism is too difficult to approach. It was a question about which I have no information, so I would be very interested to read any literature you have available on the attempts and failures to do so.
Regarding your second point, I also categorically agree that IF the number of altruistic people is limited, their efforts should always be directed to the most effective. I just cannot get past the (perhaps idealist) idea that if more people were persuaded to increase their “moral expansiveness”, per your paper, there would be no basis for the disparity/discord/conflict we see within and between races, genders, abilities, religious affiliation, nations, etc, and would simultaneously improve our general desire to contribute to help others.