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
Where is the Social Justice in EA?
New Cause Area: Baby Longtermism – Child Rights and Future Children
Promoting Simple Altruism
You are right, I missed the “next” button. I did wonder why there was so little discussion on the forum about fair and equal society. I believe you made the comment I found which questions its value.
This is excellent. I have a question I hope you include in your ongoing research:
Are these psychological traits fixed, or can they change?
Background: It is possible my case is unique, but I have changed toward these effectiveness-focused, and expansive altruism traits; having discovered EA in June 2021 I have changed my career path, returned to school to pursue an EA career, taken the GWWC pledge, etc. As recently as 7 years ago, I would not have identified with these traits. Seeing the photo of the dead Syrian refugee boy , Alan Kurdi, (trigger warning for the photo) on the Turkish beach was the turning point for me. Prior, my moral circle was small, and I had not considered the relevance of effectiveness in charitable giving.
I wonder if other EAs always identified with these traits, had a moment of “enlightenment”, or gradually changed.
Searching for proto-EA communities makes sense for increasing EA, but would it also be helpful to discover if current EAs have changed or evolved into these traits, and what were the factors?
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?
you are right, it is an excellent summary I had not found.
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.
What Peter Singer Got Wrong (And Where Give Well Could Improve)
Interesting! He is an outlier. I would be very interested to learn his story, if possible.
Agreed, it seems to be escalating fast. Although it is debatable whether the attack on Ukraine was expected, what transpires is becoming more obvious, with Putin’s thinly veiled threats of retaliation if NATO defends Ukraine. I have seen excellent arguments against No Fly Zone because enforcement of said NFZ necessitates actually shooting down planes.
Which makes me wonder about the feasibility of a peaceful solution. Sam Bankman-Fried transferred money to the Ukrainian people, and Elon Musk established Starlink over Ukraine. How effective would this modern guerilla-style be in supporting Ukrainian efforts? It could provide support for Ukraine without the open state declaration of support which would incite escalation.
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.
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.
I agree with this entirely. I submitted a post in which I speak to this very idea, (not as clearly and pointedly as you have done):
“What I see missing, is promotion of the universal benefits of equality, altruism, and goodwill. Here I mean simple altruism, not necessarily effective altruism. Imagine if only 20% of the population worked for the greater good. Or if every person spent 20% of their time at it? Convincing more of the world population to do right by each other, the environment, animals, and the future, in whatever capacity possible, seems to me to be the best investment the EA community could make. Working at a local soup kitchen may not be the most effective/efficient altruistic pursuit, but what if everyone did something similar, and maximized their personal fit? I have trouble thinking of a downside, but am open to counterpoint ideas. ”
I am a mid-career professional, who only discovered EA a year ago, FWIW.
This is great! Also, I am appreciative to learn you have been working hard on diversity :)
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.
Also this report that big pharma R&D costs are vastly overblown; it is what I had suspected, now upheld by research.
Strong upvote! I came here to say something similar. One of your most compelling points is addressing the needs and wants of the intended beneficiaries, in contrast with pursuing the most economically efficient cause area. I think there is significant moral weight in ensuring people have what they want and need, which cannot be commodified.
Peter Singer has done the math, and it is possible to reduce by half global hunger and extreme poverty, with modest numbers (old article, but I just found it):
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/magazine/17charity.t.html
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.