Penny Arcade Forums› Debate and/or Discourse
The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.

Effective Altruism, longtermers and charity

13»

Posts

  • TychoCelchuuuTychoCelchuuu PIGEON Registered User regular
    nexuscrawler wrote: »
    TychoCelchuuu wrote: »
    nexuscrawler wrote: »
    One aspect of AE is prioritizing certain things. they argue that keeping people alive is the most critical and important thing. Other issues should follow that.

    Longtermerism is just taking that utilitarian attitude to an insane conclusion. They've gone from "saving 50 lives is better than saving 1" to "How dare you bother me with millions of lives now I'm trying to save trillions of people in 100 years!"
    Again, just to reiterate, I think people need to be careful to not confuse very separate ideas.

    "Keeping people alive is the most critical and important thing" is not a "utilitarian attitude." You do not need to be a utilitarian to say it is bad if people die of (e.g.) easily preventable malaria. Every good ethical theory says it's bad if people die in droves from easily prevented illnesses.

    Moreover, utilitarianism does not need to endorse longtermism. Utilitarianism only entails longtermism if you add additional assumptions (like for instance a rejection of what's known as "average utilitarianism," which aims to maximize utility among the people who are alive today).

    And, finally, neither utilitarianism nor longtermism are entailed by effective altruism. Effective altruism says you should donate your money in effective ways. The claim that utilitarianism and longtermism determine what is effective are separate claims. They may be true. (I think they are false.) But whether they are true or false has nothing to do with effective altruism.

    And, importantly, vice versa! Whether effective altruism is true is not dependent on whether utilitarianism or longtermism are true. (Except perhaps in the sense that if utilitarianism is true, this entails effective altruism. Butt his doesn't mean other roads couldn't also lead to effective altruism.)

    do you consider MacAskill to be a part of the AE school of thought? What we Owe the Future is cited by tons of the longtermers as a foundational text on the topic.
    MacAskill is an effective altruist, yes. He is also a longtermist.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    JebusUD wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Veagle wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    I thought the weirdest thing about Singer was that he's apparently got weird opinions about the relative importance of humans vs. animals.

    One of the other big guys on the philosophy side locks himself to like 18k/year scaling for inflation and donates everything past that.

    Like I'm not going to call myself an effective altruist any time soon, but I kinda feel bad for them getting painted as a billionaire club for Objectivist supermen when the thing was like, try to make the world actually better within your means even when doing so it unsatisfying and you can't get democracy to help.

    Yeah, there's definitely a spectrum there, even if some people on it can be pretty naive. The longtermist types are way way off at the extreme end of that though, probably enough so that it's not that hard to draw a line between them and most other EA types. When your thought processes involve basically saying "nobody here and now matters, because my Great Plan is for our decendants ten thousand years from now," we're dealing with moralities that are probably at right angles to what we need to do to make it through the next ten decades.

    Heffling wrote: »
    tinwhiskers wrote: »
    I think it will be interesting to see if any additional billionaires follow the Patagonia example, with Purpose Trusts.
    Yvon Chouinard, the founder of clothing maker Patagonia, has transferred the voting stock (representing 2% of the value of the company) of this $3 billion company to a purpose trust. And, the non-voting stock (representing 98% of the value of the company), that receives the annual profits of the company worth $100 million, transferred to a private foundation. This structure was decided upon as the best way of meeting Chouinard’s objectives, which includes worker well-being and climate action, and after his children decided that they did not want to own the company.


    Though I'm not sure if something like this is more effective than just selling the company / shares and donating or setting up a foundation with the cash.

    Because his children didn't want to own the company? What in the ever living fuck!?!

    It's not that weird? Some people don't want their career to involve running a big company, especially in this era of line-must-always-go-up. And if they were raised by someone who intends to liquidate his fortune to help things like worker wellbeing, they're probably more likely than average to think that themselves just from the upbringing.

    That Adam ruins everything video sheds some more light on the situation. Seems less like they don't want to own the company, and more like they don't want to be taxed billions of dollars to inherit the company. So instead, dad gives away "the company", creates a secondary shell company to manage the original, and let's the kids inherit the new one at a fraction of a fraction of the tax liability, with a few friendly news cycles about them to boot.

    It's also important to point out that the non-profit is a specific kind that is able to do unlimited political donations.

    Effectively enshrining a new generation of lords with inherited political power. Sort of the opposite of what democracy is supposed to be.

    Freedom of speech.

    Except money = speech.

    So actually, free speech is quite expensive, if you want your voice to be heard.

    usnTyq4.jpg
    Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • WonderMinkWonderMink Adventure! Candy IslandRegistered User regular
    edited November 2022
    To what extent does qualitative measurement have weight in effective altruism movements?

    And to what extent are resources spread around for higher level goals?

    Say, so someone no longer dies in childhood of whatever disease but now they only live to the ripe old age of 35 because they have to work 14 hours a day in volcanic sulfur collection. What would be their take on this, and how should we balance life vs quality of life?

    WonderMink on
    and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
    but they're listening to every word I say
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    JebusUD wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Veagle wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    I thought the weirdest thing about Singer was that he's apparently got weird opinions about the relative importance of humans vs. animals.

    One of the other big guys on the philosophy side locks himself to like 18k/year scaling for inflation and donates everything past that.

    Like I'm not going to call myself an effective altruist any time soon, but I kinda feel bad for them getting painted as a billionaire club for Objectivist supermen when the thing was like, try to make the world actually better within your means even when doing so it unsatisfying and you can't get democracy to help.

    Yeah, there's definitely a spectrum there, even if some people on it can be pretty naive. The longtermist types are way way off at the extreme end of that though, probably enough so that it's not that hard to draw a line between them and most other EA types. When your thought processes involve basically saying "nobody here and now matters, because my Great Plan is for our decendants ten thousand years from now," we're dealing with moralities that are probably at right angles to what we need to do to make it through the next ten decades.

    Heffling wrote: »
    tinwhiskers wrote: »
    I think it will be interesting to see if any additional billionaires follow the Patagonia example, with Purpose Trusts.
    Yvon Chouinard, the founder of clothing maker Patagonia, has transferred the voting stock (representing 2% of the value of the company) of this $3 billion company to a purpose trust. And, the non-voting stock (representing 98% of the value of the company), that receives the annual profits of the company worth $100 million, transferred to a private foundation. This structure was decided upon as the best way of meeting Chouinard’s objectives, which includes worker well-being and climate action, and after his children decided that they did not want to own the company.


    Though I'm not sure if something like this is more effective than just selling the company / shares and donating or setting up a foundation with the cash.

    Because his children didn't want to own the company? What in the ever living fuck!?!

    It's not that weird? Some people don't want their career to involve running a big company, especially in this era of line-must-always-go-up. And if they were raised by someone who intends to liquidate his fortune to help things like worker wellbeing, they're probably more likely than average to think that themselves just from the upbringing.

    That Adam ruins everything video sheds some more light on the situation. Seems less like they don't want to own the company, and more like they don't want to be taxed billions of dollars to inherit the company. So instead, dad gives away "the company", creates a secondary shell company to manage the original, and let's the kids inherit the new one at a fraction of a fraction of the tax liability, with a few friendly news cycles about them to boot.

    It's also important to point out that the non-profit is a specific kind that is able to do unlimited political donations.

    Effectively enshrining a new generation of lords with inherited political power. Sort of the opposite of what democracy is supposed to be.

    Indeed, the whole structure created here is intended to create a 'money free' way in which his family can wield massive political power, which itself is worth money, tax free forever. Now, I believe that he MAY have done this because he cares about the climate and thinks he knows better than all governments and established charities in terms of how to address it. But, its effect is the same. What has been created here is an inheritable title, 'Lord of the Chouinard Foundation', which comes with many powerful perks and resources which can be traded for influence, wealth and whatever else you may want. Even if the Elder Chouinard is an angel, what about his grandchildren?

    The problem with Billionaires is not that 'they have money'. The problem is that they are SINGLE people who control the dispersion of vast sums of money. This single point of failure and corruption degrades society around it, skewing the way things work to meet the needs of this one person. There may be MORE money with all the people with just a million dollars, but, there are 10s of thousands of them. Getting cash from them will be hard. You can't bring 10000 people on a free cruise. But 1 person? With so much power and wealth to distribute? Why, we could offer them almost ANYTHING and it would be worth it.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Veagle wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    I thought the weirdest thing about Singer was that he's apparently got weird opinions about the relative importance of humans vs. animals.

    One of the other big guys on the philosophy side locks himself to like 18k/year scaling for inflation and donates everything past that.

    Like I'm not going to call myself an effective altruist any time soon, but I kinda feel bad for them getting painted as a billionaire club for Objectivist supermen when the thing was like, try to make the world actually better within your means even when doing so it unsatisfying and you can't get democracy to help.

    Yeah, there's definitely a spectrum there, even if some people on it can be pretty naive. The longtermist types are way way off at the extreme end of that though, probably enough so that it's not that hard to draw a line between them and most other EA types. When your thought processes involve basically saying "nobody here and now matters, because my Great Plan is for our decendants ten thousand years from now," we're dealing with moralities that are probably at right angles to what we need to do to make it through the next ten decades.

    Heffling wrote: »
    tinwhiskers wrote: »
    I think it will be interesting to see if any additional billionaires follow the Patagonia example, with Purpose Trusts.
    Yvon Chouinard, the founder of clothing maker Patagonia, has transferred the voting stock (representing 2% of the value of the company) of this $3 billion company to a purpose trust. And, the non-voting stock (representing 98% of the value of the company), that receives the annual profits of the company worth $100 million, transferred to a private foundation. This structure was decided upon as the best way of meeting Chouinard’s objectives, which includes worker well-being and climate action, and after his children decided that they did not want to own the company.


    Though I'm not sure if something like this is more effective than just selling the company / shares and donating or setting up a foundation with the cash.

    Because his children didn't want to own the company? What in the ever living fuck!?!

    It's not that weird? Some people don't want their career to involve running a big company, especially in this era of line-must-always-go-up. And if they were raised by someone who intends to liquidate his fortune to help things like worker wellbeing, they're probably more likely than average to think that themselves just from the upbringing.

    That Adam ruins everything video sheds some more light on the situation. Seems less like they don't want to own the company, and more like they don't want to be taxed billions of dollars to inherit the company. So instead, dad gives away "the company", creates a secondary shell company to manage the original, and let's the kids inherit the new one at a fraction of a fraction of the tax liability, with a few friendly news cycles about them to boot.

    That's exactly what's happening, thus my "what the fuck" reaction in it being portrayed as the kids don't want to run the company.

  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    I mean they probably don't want anything to do with the clothing business itself. It's the pot of money and influence they want, with someone more clothing business minded doing the business stuff.

Sign In or Register to comment.
Penny Arcade Forums› Debate and/or Discourse