Effective Altruism

[NeoGreen]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism

Effective altruism
Effective altruism is a philosophy and social movement that uses evidence and reasoning to determine the most effective ways to benefit others. Effective altruism encourages individuals to consider all causes and actions and to act in the way that brings about the greatest positive impact, based upon their values. It is the broad, evidence-based approach that distinguishes effective altruism from traditional altruism or charity.

While a substantial proportion of effective altruists have focused on the nonprofit sector, the philosophy of effective altruism applies more broadly to prioritizing the scientific projects, companies, and policy initiatives which can be estimated to save lives, help people, or otherwise have the biggest benefit. People associated with the movement include philosopher Peter Singer, Facebook cofounder Dustin Moskovitz, Cari Tuna, Oxford-based researchers William MacAskill and Toby Ord, professional poker player Liv Boeree, and writer Jacy Reese.

I'm interested in your thoughts, comments, familiarity, criticisms and experience with this concept.

Also:
https://www.effectivealtruism.org/

Effective altruism is changing the way we do good.

Effective altruism is about answering one simple question: how can we use our resources to help others the most?

Rather than just doing what feels right, we use evidence and careful analysis to find the very best causes to work on.

But it's no use answering the question unless you act on it. Effective altruism is about following through. It's about being generous with your time and your money to do the most good you can.

[safeinOhio]

1. I'm a fan of

Ethical Soceity Movement.

[Lordquinton]

2. Done some research on it

It's a way for rich people to feel better about the destructive jobs they do. They look at the US as being rich and not needing help, so they take jobs that make a lot of money, like investment banking, and then send teh money to places that they deem it will do the most good, generally poor places in africa.

It doesn't actually do anything to change the system of inequality, but it makes them feel better.

Plus Singer is into eugenics, so take that into account.

[NeoGreen]

3. Thanks...

...so a means of avoiding the realization of what the character, in the movie adaptation of Contact, S.R. Hadden came to accept:

I've had a long time to make enemies, doctor. So many governments, business interests, even religious leaders that would like to see me depart this Earth. I'll grant them their wish soon enough. But before I do, I wish to make a small contribution. A final gesture of good will to the people of this little planet who have given—from whom I have taken—so much.

[Lordquinton]

4. That's a good comparisson

It seemed good at first, but the more I looked into it the more it fell apart. He lost me completely when he stated that nature had no intrinsic value.

[NeoGreen]

5. I have trouble with the word "value"...

...it is such a human construct, and with that in mind I might be able to accept his premise.

I would rather word it that nature existing, in of itself sans humanity, is a better condition, a better state of reality than without.

Have I fallen into my own human-construct trap?

[Lordquinton]

6. His whole view is based on only humans having value

That unless it directly helps humans in some immediately tangible way, it's a waste.

I nearly threw his book across the room when I read that.

[NeoGreen]

7. Yeah...

...that doesn't work for me.

Reality would be better served with a mortal Fields of Elysium than without.

Claiming humanity is the end goal, the epitome of evolution, is analogus to painting a target circle around the arrow after it has hit a barn wall. And merely the apparent first arrow to hit the wall of one of many, many very large barns.

[Lordquinton]

8. When libertarians try to do good

They still miss the point. (Then paint a target around it, I'm gonna steal that.)

[Freelancer]

9. The shadow of altruism

I love altruism. I like the quote that you put out there and the sentiment behind it. But, in the image I have of what's wrong with the world, I see our towns and neighborhoods being inundated with sludge -- pollution both actual and intellectual.

Metaphorically, altruism is like a clean-up crew out there with mops and rags trying to make things right. It can't. The spew just keeps coming. You can clean. You can do your damnedest, and tomorrow the streets are ankle deep in figurative sludge again. All can see the spigots that are dumping darkness down upon us 24/7. They are not concealed. Yet nobody just walks up and closes them.

Until that starts to happen in earnest -- the flip side or the shadow side of altruism, you might say -- all the efforts to do good are largely for nought. At best, they're like bailing water from a sinking ship with teacups (I've got a million of 'em).

[Going even deeper down this figurative rabbit hole ->] There has to be a Zorro to a Padre Felipe, or a Dark Night working on the flip-side of Commissioner Gordon. These fictional stories gain traction because at some level, we all know that good people can't accomplish the goals of altruism by working solely in the light.

I'm old. I'm like the villagers in the dramas I'm alluding-to. I can't do anything, but if some modern incarnation of dark altruism -- some kind of Zorro -- wound up wounded on my doorstep, I would definitely hide them and lie like hell if anybody pounded on my door looking for them.

I wouldn't post about it on facebook either. Now that's some serious commitment to altruism!