Not only do EAs not think helping the developing world is easy, they assume that any charity has no impact at all until proven otherwise. This critique of EA seems like the type people make when they’ve never bothered to speak to or read anything an EA has ever said (which makes me suspect they may be beyond reaching with this blog, but I hope not!)
The best way to help poor people is to give them money. That's not absolutely correct (for example, you can't do public health projects that way) but it's a good starting point, whether the aid is being given in poor or rich countries.
Do they ever do the math of pseudoDALYs in saved lives × years weighted by quality each, versus directly improving existing bad lives? Perhaps decent investment could be something that doesn't generate new babies and improves lives, e.g. contraception preventing HIV, if one only did the math. It seems from anti-natalist POV irresponsible to just save lives if they are not necessarily good ones. Long-term also the empowering of individuals versus invididals-owning-corporations matters.
Mod voice: while generally I try to be tolerant of tangents in the comment section, you specifically have a tendency to post inflammatory material which is irrelevant to the topic of the blog post and which sparks discourse that is tedious to moderate. Cut it out.
If a blog post does not mention Open Philanthropy once, and is primarily about healthcare provision the developing world, then you should not post about Open Philanthropy's work on economic development in the developed world.
Consider all possible comments you might make, and don't make the least relevant 50% of them. If you have difficulty figuring out which comments are relevant, then flip a coin before posting and only post if it says 'heads.'
This sounds like a dishonest way of framing the new fund they announced. It aims to accelerate technological progress and promote economic growth. Non-rich countries also benefit from technological progress and economic growth!
I'm not super thrilled about the prospect of diverting global health resources to US development. The one point I can see in its favor is that the largest blow to global health and international stability in my lifetime happened because normal Americans blindly lashed out over rent and grocery prices. Every drop of EA spending ever made doesn't replace a year of PEPFAR and many other effective health interventions have been crippled by the destruction of aid logistics. I think this is a pretty strong argument for spending big to solve these issues, though I don't see it made in Open Philanthropy's announcement.
so i actually read that, only to find that... those people are conservatives and libertarians, and so they are bad?
like, i read it all and didn't know ONE bad thing those people did, but i read way too many times they are outgroup and outgroup is bad. I'm actually support democrats and have very bad opinion on Trump's recent actions, and i still find this very off-puting, and the sort of absence of evidence that is both evidence of absence, and evidence of the trustworthiness of the writer.
Not only do EAs not think helping the developing world is easy, they assume that any charity has no impact at all until proven otherwise. This critique of EA seems like the type people make when they’ve never bothered to speak to or read anything an EA has ever said (which makes me suspect they may be beyond reaching with this blog, but I hope not!)
"I believe in a humble approach to helping the developed world." -- I assume this should say "developing"
The best way to help poor people is to give them money. That's not absolutely correct (for example, you can't do public health projects that way) but it's a good starting point, whether the aid is being given in poor or rich countries.
Do they ever do the math of pseudoDALYs in saved lives × years weighted by quality each, versus directly improving existing bad lives? Perhaps decent investment could be something that doesn't generate new babies and improves lives, e.g. contraception preventing HIV, if one only did the math. It seems from anti-natalist POV irresponsible to just save lives if they are not necessarily good ones. Long-term also the empowering of individuals versus invididals-owning-corporations matters.
Mod voice: while generally I try to be tolerant of tangents in the comment section, you specifically have a tendency to post inflammatory material which is irrelevant to the topic of the blog post and which sparks discourse that is tedious to moderate. Cut it out.
Continued modvoice:
If a blog post does not mention Open Philanthropy once, and is primarily about healthcare provision the developing world, then you should not post about Open Philanthropy's work on economic development in the developed world.
Consider all possible comments you might make, and don't make the least relevant 50% of them. If you have difficulty figuring out which comments are relevant, then flip a coin before posting and only post if it says 'heads.'
This sounds like a dishonest way of framing the new fund they announced. It aims to accelerate technological progress and promote economic growth. Non-rich countries also benefit from technological progress and economic growth!
I'm not super thrilled about the prospect of diverting global health resources to US development. The one point I can see in its favor is that the largest blow to global health and international stability in my lifetime happened because normal Americans blindly lashed out over rent and grocery prices. Every drop of EA spending ever made doesn't replace a year of PEPFAR and many other effective health interventions have been crippled by the destruction of aid logistics. I think this is a pretty strong argument for spending big to solve these issues, though I don't see it made in Open Philanthropy's announcement.
so i actually read that, only to find that... those people are conservatives and libertarians, and so they are bad?
like, i read it all and didn't know ONE bad thing those people did, but i read way too many times they are outgroup and outgroup is bad. I'm actually support democrats and have very bad opinion on Trump's recent actions, and i still find this very off-puting, and the sort of absence of evidence that is both evidence of absence, and evidence of the trustworthiness of the writer.