Thanks for this thoughtful comment, Prof John. However, the proposition that poor people are in the best position to decide what to do with a gift has a number of counter-arguments. First, we know that a proportion of individuals will spend a windfall on disserviceable purposes. The Grameen model of micro-finance (at least in its original incarnation) granted more than 95% of its loans to women because the men in impoverished communities were more likely to spend a windfall on gambling or worse. Second, the proposition sounds uncomfortably like the proposition that brings economic rationalism undone: that everybody is rationally self-interested and can be entrusted to make decisions in their best interest in a free market. On the contrary, we know that there are such things as public goods that individuals can't supply for themselves and that are vital for well-being. (Of course, the proposition has different individual and collective dimensions. There is a large gap between what a competent bureaucracy would provide to a starving individual – a food voucher – and what it would provide to a food insecure population – better farming). Third, it would seem to demean the role of expertise – "We know what to do with our money, we don't need a bureaucracy to advise us ". A significant proportion of the public service spends its time trying to devise better solutions to social problems than individuals would apply by themselves. And finally, it would seem to be congruent with the claim that the reason for the gap in Aboriginal health outcomes is that Aboriginal people don't control the money ( confusing a necessary condition of consultation and involvement with a sufficient one).
Your post accurately identifies many of these exceptions/qualifications; I would argue that the exceptions are sufficiently powerful to render the proposition generally wrong, though sometimes appropriate.
Yes, opportunity cost is a powerful frame. So also is mediation by a competent public authority or civil society group with expertise in addressing the particular needs. The role of a competent entity seems to be missing from both effective altruism and personal virtue. It seems to be missing from the Bill Gates model that because he has lots of money, he knows best how to solve world health. If the central premise of effective altruism is "if you want to help poor people, give them what they most need", it avoids the question of who decides what they most need – the recipient (see above why this isn't always optimal) or the giver (see Bill Gates example above why this isn't always optimal).
You should reconsider not taking the possibility of an AI apocalypse (which can come in many different forms) seriously. Super intelligence is genuinely frightening.
I started work on a book on possible catastrophes a while back. My lead items: nuclear holocaust, climate catastrophe, pandemic on scale of Black Death, worldwide collapse of democracy. AI apocalypse might squeak in at number 5. YMMV
Obviously doing something tangible like donating money directly or donating money for community public goods is always more effective than just wishing or praying that those in need receive help.
Culturally I think human beings when they are in dire circumstances and are restricted in their choices, might decide to pray or send positive thoughts when there are no other alternatives. If your a Muslim or Christian Palestinian in Gaza and your shit frightened and terrified that bombs are landing all around your building, you know that a bomb can kill your children and yourself, then you might just decide to pray or send positive thoughts that the next bomb doesn’t land near you or your neighbours. Let’s also say that if your a homeless person living on the streets in Sydney, and you lead a hand to mouth existence, but your concerned about the plight of poor people in Sudan, you might have no other option but just to pray or send positive thoughts to those poor people in Sudan.
In addition, why can’t a professional person spend sometime doing volunteer work instead of working for income, and still donate directly to those in need? I don’t see them as mutually exclusive, but as an issue of generosity and time preference.
Agree particularly with the final paragraph. If Dives wants to stay the sort of person who gives real money efficiently to the Lazaruses, it's a good idea to spend some time in face-to-face contact with them and their problems.. Like for instance Rosalynn Carter. From the CNN obituary: " “The Carter Center is a shared legacy. She’s been there digging latrines right next to him,” said the Carters’ friend Jill Stuckey, a leader at Maranatha Baptist Church, where both Carters attended and where Jimmy Carter taught Sunday school."
Prayer is a good way of sorting out the things you can do something about (memo to self) and those you can't (memo to God). Saints are highly focused altruists - Mrs Carter, Cicely Saunders, Mother Teresa, William Wilberforce.
By coincidence, I just saw this, suggesting some big supporters are EA are rethinking their commitment. So, nicely timed!
https://www.semafor.com/article/11/21/2023/how-effective-altruism-led-to-a-crisis-at-openai
Thanks for this thoughtful comment, Prof John. However, the proposition that poor people are in the best position to decide what to do with a gift has a number of counter-arguments. First, we know that a proportion of individuals will spend a windfall on disserviceable purposes. The Grameen model of micro-finance (at least in its original incarnation) granted more than 95% of its loans to women because the men in impoverished communities were more likely to spend a windfall on gambling or worse. Second, the proposition sounds uncomfortably like the proposition that brings economic rationalism undone: that everybody is rationally self-interested and can be entrusted to make decisions in their best interest in a free market. On the contrary, we know that there are such things as public goods that individuals can't supply for themselves and that are vital for well-being. (Of course, the proposition has different individual and collective dimensions. There is a large gap between what a competent bureaucracy would provide to a starving individual – a food voucher – and what it would provide to a food insecure population – better farming). Third, it would seem to demean the role of expertise – "We know what to do with our money, we don't need a bureaucracy to advise us ". A significant proportion of the public service spends its time trying to devise better solutions to social problems than individuals would apply by themselves. And finally, it would seem to be congruent with the claim that the reason for the gap in Aboriginal health outcomes is that Aboriginal people don't control the money ( confusing a necessary condition of consultation and involvement with a sufficient one).
Your post accurately identifies many of these exceptions/qualifications; I would argue that the exceptions are sufficiently powerful to render the proposition generally wrong, though sometimes appropriate.
Yes, opportunity cost is a powerful frame. So also is mediation by a competent public authority or civil society group with expertise in addressing the particular needs. The role of a competent entity seems to be missing from both effective altruism and personal virtue. It seems to be missing from the Bill Gates model that because he has lots of money, he knows best how to solve world health. If the central premise of effective altruism is "if you want to help poor people, give them what they most need", it avoids the question of who decides what they most need – the recipient (see above why this isn't always optimal) or the giver (see Bill Gates example above why this isn't always optimal).
You should reconsider not taking the possibility of an AI apocalypse (which can come in many different forms) seriously. Super intelligence is genuinely frightening.
I started work on a book on possible catastrophes a while back. My lead items: nuclear holocaust, climate catastrophe, pandemic on scale of Black Death, worldwide collapse of democracy. AI apocalypse might squeak in at number 5. YMMV
Obviously doing something tangible like donating money directly or donating money for community public goods is always more effective than just wishing or praying that those in need receive help.
Culturally I think human beings when they are in dire circumstances and are restricted in their choices, might decide to pray or send positive thoughts when there are no other alternatives. If your a Muslim or Christian Palestinian in Gaza and your shit frightened and terrified that bombs are landing all around your building, you know that a bomb can kill your children and yourself, then you might just decide to pray or send positive thoughts that the next bomb doesn’t land near you or your neighbours. Let’s also say that if your a homeless person living on the streets in Sydney, and you lead a hand to mouth existence, but your concerned about the plight of poor people in Sudan, you might have no other option but just to pray or send positive thoughts to those poor people in Sudan.
In addition, why can’t a professional person spend sometime doing volunteer work instead of working for income, and still donate directly to those in need? I don’t see them as mutually exclusive, but as an issue of generosity and time preference.
Agree particularly with the final paragraph. If Dives wants to stay the sort of person who gives real money efficiently to the Lazaruses, it's a good idea to spend some time in face-to-face contact with them and their problems.. Like for instance Rosalynn Carter. From the CNN obituary: " “The Carter Center is a shared legacy. She’s been there digging latrines right next to him,” said the Carters’ friend Jill Stuckey, a leader at Maranatha Baptist Church, where both Carters attended and where Jimmy Carter taught Sunday school."
Prayer is a good way of sorting out the things you can do something about (memo to self) and those you can't (memo to God). Saints are highly focused altruists - Mrs Carter, Cicely Saunders, Mother Teresa, William Wilberforce.