= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Effective Altruism from XYZ perspective - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (77)
Well, quite. The problem I see is that equality of worth is for some a sacred value, leading to the valuing of all lives equally and direction of resources to wherever the most lives can be saved, regardless of whose they are. While it is not something that logically follows from the basic idea of directing resources wherever they can do the most good, I don't see the EA movement grasping the nettle of what counts as the most good. Lives or QALYs are the only things on the EA table at present.
How do you come to that conclusion? When the Open Philanthropy project researches whether why should spend more effort on dealing with the risk of solar storms, how's that Lives or QALYs?
I may have a limited view of the EA movement. I had in mind primarily Givewell, whose currently recommended charities are all focussed on directing money towards the poorer parts of the world, to alleviate either disease or poverty. The Good Ventures portfolio of grants is mostly directed to the same sort of thing.
On global threats:
How would it not be? Major and prolonged geomagnetic storms, threaten the lives and QALYs of everyone everywhere, so there isn't an issue there of selecting who to save first. Protective measures save everyone.
You confuse reasons strategic choices of why GiveWell makes those recommendations with the shortest summary of the intervention.
Spending money on health care intervention does more than just saving lives. There are a lot of ripple effects.
GiveWell is also producing incentives to for charities in general to become more transparent and evidence-based.
You said only lives and QALYs. I'm not disputing that it also effects lives and QALYs. I'm disputing that's the only thing you get from it.
Well, what measure are they using?
I don't think there's a single measure. There rather an attempt to understand all the effects of an intervention as best as possible.