This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
On concentric loyalties, the circles grow exponentially larger. The chance that your inner few circles will happen to contain most effective causes are basically nil. If all the resources are going to the outer rings, the loyalties are effectively reversed.
What does EA do to hold its beneficiaries accountable that others don't? I was not saying that they are worse, they just aren't better from what I know. Churches now don't have nearly enough cultural capital to make and demands, but in times where it's volunteers serving their local community, guys would absolutely be expected to maintain a certain level of decorum and respect, lest service be denied. There's also more reason for the recipients to do this. They are interacting with real people they know, not salaried representatives of the government or other massive entity.
Their population started exploding when the shipments started flowing. Are you disputing that food AID generates more Africans? That seems straightforward.
GiveWell's top charities are:
Medicine to prevent malaria
Nets to prevent malaria
Supplements to prevent vitamin A deficiency [in Africa]
Cash incentives for routine childhood vaccines [in Africa]
I'll admit that this is not "sending pallets of rice," but it's very similar. They are providing supplies that produce more Africans who need more supplies. Their top one is "$3500 per life saved". But if saving a life also means creating 2-3 more lives, should the cost not actually be infinite? By accountability I don't mean for the charities, e.g. against theft. I mean accountability for the recipients. If I offer someone a couch to sleep on, there is an expectation that the person is working on finding their own place to stay. What are Africans doing to deal with malaria themselves, such that there is a foreseeable end to the program? Does anything happen if they don't follow through?
An accountable way to do the same thing would be to fund a company that manufactures the mosquito nets or malaria medication in Africa, staffed by Africans. Once at breakeven, turn over ownership. Job done. If those things are too difficult to manufacture, stick with importing/distribution, but sell the product for money. If nobody will pay for it, then maybe it's not worth as much as GiveWell is paying for it.
To clarify, I see charity for an African society as way different than charity for domestic homeless. For the society, you could do charity by giving them technology or organizational principles they are themselves unable to produce. The equivalent doesn't really exist for homeless. My gripe is mostly that the malaria charity only begs more charity.
Have you considered the positive externalities of malaria?
Churches operating food kitchens does not rapidly increase the demand for food kitchens. But let's say it does. The church is enabling the procreation of its own people, not hostile foreigners.
More options
Context Copy link
Whether or not something is a positive externality (for him) at all depends on your preferences and the prior distribution of property rights. You can't simply take this for granted.
This is an obvious sneer, please don't do that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link