All of hookdump's Comments + Replies

I'm very sorry for your loss.

I do agree with your view on the ineffectiveness of spending a lot of money on a dead person.

However... I think people find meaning from a wide range of things, and rituals around birth and death are two big ones since the origins of humankind itself. So in a sense, I can empathize with your family spending so much money. It seems to mean something to them.

Sacrificing material things in funerary rituals is as old as Ancient Egypt, and probably much older. The only new component in modern society is that now this sacrifice trans... (read more)

Should've clarified: The $2M is, indeed, being burned, in the sense that it's for developing a customized genetic treatment.

That being said, your point still applies: Presumably each person who purchases this treatment is contributing to some technological polishing and helping eventually make this cheaper. Presumably!

I'm saying it's out of scope, meaning it's not what this post is about.

It's about a phenomenon that happens in lots of different situations and topics. I'm trying to generalize it, abstract it, and understand it.

A simple example:

Family meeting. Mother says: "The electric bill is getting expensive. Please mind your use of energy. Don't leave lights on when unnecessary. Use the Air Conditioner at reasonable temperatures. Etc."

Then one of the sons thinks: "Why should I make any personal changes or sacrifices? I bar... (read more)

That's why I didn't focus on actual examples, and only briefly mentioned a couple in the begginning. :P

I'm more interested in the psychological phenomenon, rather than specific instances in real life, or wether its occurrence is a good or a bad thing.

e.g. Maybe it makes sense to not cooperate. I don't know. That's out of scope here.

-5Said Achmiz

Fair enough. Presumably there could be many different reasons to be unwilling to "cooperate". One of them could be an underestimation of the effects of one's individual actions, but there could be other reasons.

Fair. (I was only trying to model a super specific aspect of this debate, not the entire problem).

Your example of filling the swimming pool one drop at a time while hundreds of gallons per minute pour out through the hole in the bottom is much better, and kind of disheartening to think about.

What's a good strategy in that scenario? (maybe adding a twist: If the pool completely empties, we all die)

3Dagon
In that scenario, the strategy is probably to stop the leak or find a new pool, rather than trying to coordinate to fill it fast enough. Or perhaps just to enjoy the remaining water before we all die. I'm reminded of the old military recommendation: "Sir, what should I do if I step on a mine?" "The recommended strategy is to leap 10 feet into the air and splatter yourself over a wide area".

Good question! I don't think it's usually possible to estimate that accurately.

That's why I think it may make sense to play it safe, and just adopt a strategy of "doing our personal best", while trying to promote other changes too (inspire others to do their best, push for policy changes, etc).

Of course I was referring specifically about people who, in your words, cannot do it. :)

I worded it as "we" instead of "some people" in order to take my fair bit of personal responsibility: Even though I fully acknowledge the incredible importance of Climate Change, through my actions I am often part of this group of irresponsible people I refer to.

That being said, I found your answer really enlightening. Thank you. :)

I didn't claim that is not the case.

You seem to think that an altruist action that harms me but benefits the whole planet should have at least a certain amount X of positive impact on the planet... otherwise it's not worth certain sacrifices. And to that, I say: Fair enough!

To give an absurd example: Giving up civilized life, and starting to live in the middle of the forest without any technology would be a silly, disproportionate, ineffective sacrifice to do in order to help Climate Change. It's a nonsensical plan. And I agree with you.

I th... (read more)

Even if a person wants to do something about a problem, it's often much more impactful to donate to an effective charity then to change personal behavior.

Not sure if you meant "then" or if it was a typo for "than", but either way I have an observation:

One can do both things: donate to an effective charity and change personal behavior, no?

One example I like is: vegan lifestyle vs. vegan activism.

Activism is a lot more impactful than becoming vegan oneself. By far. Because of the potential amount of people reached, and because activi... (read more)

2ChristianKl
A key concept of effective altruism is that you don't ask "what would be effective if everybody does it" but focus on tractability, neglectedness and importance when choosing your own actions. Apart from that it's a possible feature that everybody eats meat but it's artifical grown meat for which no animal had to suffer. It's one of the approaches that the EA's I know in the field consider tractable.
3ChristianKl
Nothing in the facts of the scenario layed out in the OP indicates that anybody engages in underestimating. The scenario is completely compatible with everyone estimating the effects of their actions correctly but at the same time are unwilling to pay the price for them.
4remizidae
I think this example is misleading; I could fill a water glass by myself one drop at a time, although it would take a long time. But, with many large problems such as pandemics and climate change, there is no feasible scenario where one person’s action makes a difference. Perhaps an example where I try to fill a swimming pool one drop at a time, while hundreds of gallons per minute pour out through the hole in the bottom.
4Pattern
How is impact correctly estimated (or its order of magnitude)? (And how can it be correctly estimated?)

Hi, I'm new here, and I share your appreciation for the design of the site and particularly the comments system. It's amazing!! <3