Seems like the truly objectionable thing about EA that motivates these attacks is the same thing that makes people object to veganism so strenuously - if adopted, they require you to make difficult changes to your life.
What effective altruism hasn't grasped yet is that regardless of whether the castle is a good investment, it is so very important from the perspective of reputation management to not own any castles or associate with high danger industries, like gambling, weapons and crypto. People want to do good are held to higher standards of ethical stringency- it's not fair, but it's reality. Also, there's a concern that one day the castle might own you rather than vice versa- a concern that I think is not entirely overblown.
Regarding pigs, EA has a good case, but inevitably it has lead to shrimp and fish welfare, even insect welfare. This is obviously as ridiculous as Simeon Stylites was for early Christianity. Much of longtermism is also a case of human reason falling down a slippery slope, so there is a case against EA.
Additionally, the woke left has good reason to be against a revival of the modernizing universalist left ideology.
Yeah, insects aren't sentient right? My understanding was that the latest research attributed sentience only to the higher animals.
And quite apart from that, insect welfare is particularly thorny since it sits in obvious, direct contradiction with EAs' number one cause, malaria prevention.
Nobody knows how is it to be a Bat, so less an insect: consciousness is noumenal.
But the idea that you can seriously intervene in the lives of fish or shrimp… Perhaps when we more or less get our house in order (overcoming extreme human suffering, nuclear war risk and animal factory farming) we can think about wild life, preferably vertebrates.
The lack of common sense in some vocal parts of EA deserves being discussed.
I don't get what you mean by "seriously intervene." Shrimp welfare is because there's a lot of shrimp and a lot of them get their eyestalk cut off which would cause a lot of suffering, so they advocate for not doing that. That sounds like a serious intervention.
It is not. The shrimp is an insect, and very likely non conscious at all. Compared with the amount of arthropods and their suffering (if there is such a thing) anything humans can do is totally irrelevant.
How do you know this? Most importantly, even if you are right, why do you think it's a clear open-and-shut case and not something that people should seriously consider?
It is a clear case that we are too removed from insects or bacteria to know how do they feel, and they too many of them to substantially affect their existence.
There is a pecking order where you first overcome cannibalism, then slavery, next imperialism and racial discrimination and then you move into animal farming. In that order, invertebrate welfare perhaps can be considered in 2500.
Discussing this stuff is fun in itself, but there are people spending money and funding charities for fish or insect welfare. The Simon Stylites branch…
I really think supporters of this undervalue certain tonal aspects that turn a lot of people off. It’s fantastic to support malaria nets and many of these other things. But when people come across as if they believe nobody else before they arrived ever thought of the point that altruism should be directed toward more, rather than less, effective recipients it comes across as hubris. I’m sure nobody says this explicitly but the sense that is often conveyed is that up until yesterday everyone mostly just threw money to the opera and that we can all thank the “effective altruists” for making the amazing discovery that this might not be an optimal thing to do. If it was just presented as a bunch of people trying to do more incrementally to improve information about charitable recipients, I suspect there would be a lot less pushback. I don’t think it’s nearly as much some reaction against the kinds of people who tend to associate with the “movement.”
I don't know but catholicism must be true because it's done good things and just look at the art and the cathedrals. Art and cathedrals that have made the world a better place.
Catholicism is a series of belief claims, effective altruism is a social movement. Of course, there's also a philosophical side--that one should better the world effectively--but that's utterly trivial.
Seems like the truly objectionable thing about EA that motivates these attacks is the same thing that makes people object to veganism so strenuously - if adopted, they require you to make difficult changes to your life.
What effective altruism hasn't grasped yet is that regardless of whether the castle is a good investment, it is so very important from the perspective of reputation management to not own any castles or associate with high danger industries, like gambling, weapons and crypto. People want to do good are held to higher standards of ethical stringency- it's not fair, but it's reality. Also, there's a concern that one day the castle might own you rather than vice versa- a concern that I think is not entirely overblown.
IIRC the people who bought the castle considered this but decided it wasn't important enough to tip the scales.
I do believe EA is very much aware of looking at the second order effects of its decisions. Is it reasonable to expect no mistakes?
Regarding pigs, EA has a good case, but inevitably it has lead to shrimp and fish welfare, even insect welfare. This is obviously as ridiculous as Simeon Stylites was for early Christianity. Much of longtermism is also a case of human reason falling down a slippery slope, so there is a case against EA.
Additionally, the woke left has good reason to be against a revival of the modernizing universalist left ideology.
Yeah, insects aren't sentient right? My understanding was that the latest research attributed sentience only to the higher animals.
And quite apart from that, insect welfare is particularly thorny since it sits in obvious, direct contradiction with EAs' number one cause, malaria prevention.
Nobody knows how is it to be a Bat, so less an insect: consciousness is noumenal.
But the idea that you can seriously intervene in the lives of fish or shrimp… Perhaps when we more or less get our house in order (overcoming extreme human suffering, nuclear war risk and animal factory farming) we can think about wild life, preferably vertebrates.
The lack of common sense in some vocal parts of EA deserves being discussed.
I don't get what you mean by "seriously intervene." Shrimp welfare is because there's a lot of shrimp and a lot of them get their eyestalk cut off which would cause a lot of suffering, so they advocate for not doing that. That sounds like a serious intervention.
It is not. The shrimp is an insect, and very likely non conscious at all. Compared with the amount of arthropods and their suffering (if there is such a thing) anything humans can do is totally irrelevant.
Insect welfare is a job for Dr Manhattan
> very likely non conscious at all.
How do you know this? Most importantly, even if you are right, why do you think it's a clear open-and-shut case and not something that people should seriously consider?
It is a clear case that we are too removed from insects or bacteria to know how do they feel, and they too many of them to substantially affect their existence.
There is a pecking order where you first overcome cannibalism, then slavery, next imperialism and racial discrimination and then you move into animal farming. In that order, invertebrate welfare perhaps can be considered in 2500.
Discussing this stuff is fun in itself, but there are people spending money and funding charities for fish or insect welfare. The Simon Stylites branch…
I simply don't share the kind of egalitarian morality that the EA people believe in.
The best critiques of longtermism are just to go back to bednets and farming reforms!
I really think supporters of this undervalue certain tonal aspects that turn a lot of people off. It’s fantastic to support malaria nets and many of these other things. But when people come across as if they believe nobody else before they arrived ever thought of the point that altruism should be directed toward more, rather than less, effective recipients it comes across as hubris. I’m sure nobody says this explicitly but the sense that is often conveyed is that up until yesterday everyone mostly just threw money to the opera and that we can all thank the “effective altruists” for making the amazing discovery that this might not be an optimal thing to do. If it was just presented as a bunch of people trying to do more incrementally to improve information about charitable recipients, I suspect there would be a lot less pushback. I don’t think it’s nearly as much some reaction against the kinds of people who tend to associate with the “movement.”
> Btw, I’m back on Twitter
RIP Bulldog 2022-2024. See you in Heaven.
I wonder if the existence of a God who creates unsetly many people undermines effective altruism...
I don't know but catholicism must be true because it's done good things and just look at the art and the cathedrals. Art and cathedrals that have made the world a better place.
Catholicism is a series of belief claims, effective altruism is a social movement. Of course, there's also a philosophical side--that one should better the world effectively--but that's utterly trivial.
Is beneficence really trivial? Or are you just saying that because it’s an axiom you’re not willing to entertain criticism of?