Is Effective Altruism /sci/?

[Anonymous No.14716504]

[Anonymous No.14716525]

>>14716504
Consequentialism is not and has never been /sci/, or even rational.

[e No.14716552]

>>14716504
Given the basis is to try to use evidence and reason to be effective, whatever that means as pertains to the given goals, I guess? Evidence gathered would include science.

My problem with strategies and ideas like these stems from the fact they lack a reason to be. If you align to their purpose it simply follows, but if you do not align to their purpose they lack persuasion to do so. This usually runs in circles, "make the world you want to live in" and other platitudes, but lack acknowledgment of the fact plenty of people CAN BE wronged enough to find reason to reject contribution.

The real challenge moral idealists have is in helping, and persuading by example, the justified and justifiable cynics. People who've only one life to live, and that life is nothing but evidence mankind should rot. Given misanthropists like myself were once the very same idealists, the dismissal of justification for misanthropy is the greatest weakness of such moral movements. Nothing this group has done has ever benefitted me, nor does my participation seem to benefit me. Platitudes do not benefit me either.

In effect, what affluent moralizers tend to lack is the ability to understand the necessity of reciprocity at the base level. Same for all moralizers. "Show me", don't preach at me. That is a reasonable challenge to all moral systems. If they fail to show me the reciprocity, and ability to make up for the wrongs of others to benefit ME and SHOW ME, they may as well be preaching to me about an invisible deity who may manifest "eventually". What would I care?

[Anonymous No.14717017]

>>14716504
What's the alternative?
>>14716552
So you just reject altruism in general?

[e No.14717049]

>>14717017
>So you just reject altruism in general?
Given my experience, I reject 100% of all attempts to "help" someone who does not first begin with me. I've required help plenty in my life, and I've received none of it. Therefore, if I am not first, I cannot trust nor will I trust the supposed "altruism" conveniently targeted "somewhere else". I am using myself as an example, but there's a broader issue.

Now, that is not just me personally, but "me" includes people in my country of similar situation. In other words, failure and refusal to lift a finger to help those suffering in their own borders. I am simply one of many, present in each society, and who the "altruistic" pretend don't exist as they justify ignoring those proximately more available to help. That is, failing to factor in proximity and allegiance locally, and in turn ABSOLUTELY deserving the ire of me and others who would feel like me.

So multiply that by tons of people lower within societies of the affluent who feel neglected, ignored, spinning in place and unable to escape the turmoil they live. All the "help" just goes "somewhere else". I hope you see the problem with their strategy, because these affluent fuckwits seem completely blind to the building hostility.

[Anonymous No.14717088]

>>14717049
>failure and refusal to lift a finger to help those suffering in their own borders.
I don't think they're blind to the suffering of people who don't receive charity. They're working with data to save as many lives as possible given a limited budget. I have no doubt that given an arbitrary amount of resources they would help everyone. It just happens that the people capable of giving to charity tend not to live in countries where charity would be most effective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G19EGR_bo7s

[Anonymous No.14717099]

>>14717017
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex

[Anonymous No.14717107]

>>14717099
Out of curiosity, what proportion of people who donate time or money do you believe have messiah complexes?

[Anonymous No.14717259]

>>14717107
what proportion of them are doing so without getting a tax break, a resume line, unsupervised access to children or some other sort of "perk" in exchange for the "donation"? i doubt the heroin dealer who volunteers at the needle exchange is doing so because of a messiah complex.

[Anonymous No.14717268]

Is Effective Altruism Christianity for the autistic?

[Anonymous No.14717273]

>>14716525
Retard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BYUlKSY4wk&list=PL_HJ0tBxcTkZq-_b-P2xkKFhPkn85-_H9

[Anonymous No.14717284]

>>14716504
Effective Altruism has largely been ruined by SJWs.

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/sjws-vs-ea/
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/robin-hanson-canceled-from-ea/
https://akarlin.substack.com/p/grey-skies-ahead-for-life-extension

[Anonymous No.14717304]

>>14717273
Were you trying to prove something or just to sound mentally ill?

[Anonymous No.14717314]

>>14716552
>i'm a miserable NPC
LOL. Good to know you're living a life worse than death. Are you an antinatalist?

[e No.14717334]

>>14717088
Exhibit A. You have missed my point and, in fact, reiterated EXACTLY what I am criticizing.

[Anonymous No.14717368]

>>14716525
>Consequentialism is not and has never been /sci/, or even rational.
This is how redditors talk
>>14716552
>>14717049
>namefag is self-centered
Who could have seen that coming?

[e No.14717378]

The fundamental error made by people who run charities is that they don't make enough of an effort to appeal to miserable and infantile NEETs like me. They only appeal to people with benevolent desires, but personally, I don't care for them because there's just nothing in it for me. I hate humanity. Humanity has done nothing but hurt me. I got rejected by Stacy and bullied by Chad. If they were rational, they'd do their best to appeal to soulless parasites. This is unscientific on their part.

[e No.14717384]

>>14717368
Exhibit B: you are still missing my point. Self-centerdness is not a scientifically valid term.

[Anonymous No.14717391]

>>14717368
>t. redditor
Consequentialism is a method of controlling mindless cattle like you.

[Anonymous No.14717396]

>>14717259
Ted Bundy volunteered at a suicide hotline

[Anonymous No.14717458]

>>14717391
Still talking like a redditor.

[e No.14717543]

>>14717384
When you have to samefag to pretend I'm giving you attention it's real pathetic. Like, that's new levels of pathetic.

[Anonymous No.14717611]

The AI risk is complete horseshit. Yeah yeah, they never saw us traveling to the moon but it happened as quickly as 1969, clearly these things are identifiable. But the singularity would still take time to develop and the signs would be there

[Anonymous No.14717721]

>>14717611
I would encourage you to look at the data instead of going with your gut feeling or what's intuitive.
https://bounded-regret.ghost.io/more-is-different-for-ai/
https://bounded-regret.ghost.io/future-ml-systems-will-be-qualitatively-different/
https://bounded-regret.ghost.io/thought-experiments-provide-a-third-anchor/

[Anonymous No.14717725]

>>14717259
Meds

[Anonymous No.14717731]

>>14717378
>rational
ah so you're just trolling

[a No.14717750]

The problem with EA is that the most effective altruistic act is not coming into existence so they should give all their energy towards sterilization, from a utilitarian standpoint. A negative one.

[Anonymous No.14717756]

>>14717750
>the namefag advocating eugenics
how ironic

[a No.14717762]

>>14717756
Did I?
Is that what I did? Or did I name what shouldn't be named if we're talking real cost/benefit analysis? Anything else will be masturbatory and wasteful.

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

[Anonymous No.14717768]

>>14717259
John Wayne Gacy volunteered for all sorts of wonderful causes in and around Chicago during the 1970s, he was such a wonderful person that he got to meet President Carter's wife

[e No.14717784]

>>14717762
That's not a very honest take on EA, given nonexistence invalidates all the constructs used in its evaluation. There's no utility, or anything, in nonexistence. They would probably argue in most circumstances perpetuating existence in some string of platitudes. While I disagree with it, that doesn't mean one should not seek to understand the positions and their entailments. Not least of which I do not think any proponent of EA would recognize, or at least I don't, something like "a negative utilitarian standpoint". So unpopular is that position in fact, and so convenient to the opponents of utilitarians, I can't recall anyone advocating it except people criticizing utilitarians who don't subscribe to the idea. I hope you see the problem with that.

[a No.14717806]

>>14717784
There's no utility in not coming into existence but extreme dis-utility is possible from coming into existence. Especially if they believe their own s-risks. Just because its not popular doesn't mean its not the solution with the strongest utility. They should just call it EA* where the "*" stands for " except for the thing that would actually work."

These aren't my views. I'm just pointing out their bullshit.

[e No.14717839]

>>14717806
>There's no utility in not coming into existence but extreme dis-utility is possible from coming into existence.
As well as all possible utility in coming into existence. You say it's "pointing out their bullshit" but I don't think you've made a good argument at all. Clearly enough people desire to continue to exist as they choose to perpetuate to exist and perpetuate that with children. There are a lot of easy refutations to this "dis-utility" claim. Just because Sam Harris made an argument doesn't mean he represents the whole or even a popular position among these people.

[a No.14717884]

>>14717839
>Sam Harris
Never read him.

I don't know about all that, but if I believed in a hell of any sort, I would have enough empathy to not create a possible experiencer of it. This goes for all religions like EA and LessWrong.

[Anonymous No.14717922]

>>14717259
I have donated thousands of dollars to complete strangers on the internet and to homeless, and much more to relatives in need. I would not call it a messiah complex since that involves delusions of changing the world.

[Anonymous No.14717947]

this is the cringiest thread ive evr seen hlyf

[e No.14717982]

>>14717884
>I don't know about all that, but if I believed in a hell of any sort, I would have enough empathy to not create a possible experiencer of it. This goes for all religions like EA and LessWrong.
I'm simply pointing out that the argument presented ISN'T premised on the same foundations these people premise EA on. Yes, IF they did, antinatalism would be the obvious lead in. I can only repeat "That is not their moral foundation" so many times.

There's a fundamental difference between people who think life has some inherent virtue or quality to it and those who don't. For those of us who don't, simply repeating "it doesn't" is hardly persuasive nor is it premised on the same intuition these people are drawing from. That same intuition they draw from is what leads them to spend endlessly "elsewhere" while very miserable people exist next door, and then act "surprised pikachu" when the torches and pitchforks come for them. I'm just trying to explain to you that you have a bad argument. Just as I'm trying to explain to those people why they're self-sabotaging.

[Anonymous No.14718026]

>>14716552
>Nothing this group has done has ever benefitted me
this statement is flatly false. your entire existence is owed to the consequences of decisions made by other people e.g. your birth, the production of all the food you’ve ever eaten and liquid you’ve ever drank, all the clothes you’ve ever worn, all the days you’ve ever lived are contingent on other beings, and the vast majority of those other beings are humans. it follows logically that working in cooperation with humans and working to communicate and empathize with them would be the most self-interested thing to do if one were merely to look at the outsized impact that the meagre actions of others can have on our lives.

however, I will grant that altruism and its benefits appear to be getting sucked away from the people most willing to do it (the lower classes) and are enjoyed almost exclusively by the people who act most in direct opposition to it (the ruling classes). for most anybody alive today we exist in a socio-economic superstructure that rewards cannibalistic and narcissistic behavior, and promotes abusive and transactional human interactions. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that’s the sole cause of what eventually transforms well-meaning and naïve humans into cynics like you appear to be, but it certainly seems to have an effect

[a No.14718036]

>>14717982
I bet you think cutting off the head to cure the headache is a bad argument.

In all honestly, all of their "solutions" involve at least some kid in the dungeons of Omelas, so they can shoot for breaking as even as possible but under their "altruism," someone gets tortured. At least the antinatalists are honest about this. EA breaks down to "lets best manage the problem we continually create."

[e No.14718090]

>>14718026
>>14718036
>I bet you think cutting off the head to cure the headache is a bad argument.
Exactly. Given that's exactly what they'd say in reply, that is why I've been saying "Look I get it but it's a bad argument". As they will see it as analogous even if it isn't, leaving open the retort as you said there.
>>14718026
>this statement is flatly false.
This post was hysterical. Let's go through your reasoning.
>your entire existence is owed to the consequences of decisions made by other people
Which affirms what I've said and why I'm resentful and hostile to "altruism". Almost like you live a privileged life and haven't a clue why anyone would have a dim view of getting the short end of the stick.
>e.g. your birth, the production of all the food you’ve ever eaten and liquid you’ve ever drank, all the clothes you’ve ever worn, all the days you’ve ever lived are contingent on other beings, and the vast majority of those other beings are humans.
Welcome to why I'm a misanthropist. Oh, wait, you assumed I lived a charmed life? Or do you think "Well you didn't die in infancy" is the SOLE and ONLY bar that exists for comparison? Are you going with "the fallacy of relative privation" or are you content being only this stupid?
>it follows logically that working in cooperation with humans and working to communicate and empathize with them would be the most self-interested thing to do if one were merely to look at the outsized impact that the meagre actions of others can have on our lives.
Which is why it follows LOGICALLY if you've been "cheated" in the game of "cooperate" you begin to demand "pay me first fucker" until people start playing fairly. As you seem to already be aware of in your next paragraph, yet you lead with "durrrr that's flatly false" as if you psychicly know someone else's life. The one with narcissism problems here seems to be you.

[e No.14718095]

>>14718026
>>14718090
>e.g. your birth, the production of all the food you’ve ever eaten and liquid you’ve ever drank, all the clothes you’ve ever worn, all the days you’ve ever lived are contingent on other beings, and the vast majority of those other beings are humans.
And in case you *still* didn't get it, this is exactly why the culmination of those people responsible for lives like mine deserve much more than mere middle fingers for my "privilege" of being born. I am hardly alone in being justified in saying so. Care to rectify your wholly erroneous claim that my previous statement was "flatly false"?

[Anonymous No.14718140]

>>14718090
>>14718095
I’ve actually lived a terrible life, anon. been homeless for 6 years, raped and cheated on by my first love, abused by my entire family growing up, and at 31 I live in abject poverty and am deeply isolated and alienated from society. however, I find it to be a lame and frankly cliché excuse to turn around and say
>FUCK PEOPLE
after all of that, because it’s just as easy to draw a narrative of my own history which highlights the acts of random and extraordinary kindness I’ve received from people (certainly not enough to truly reverse my fortune in life) as it is to draw a narrative that puts me at odds not only with an unfathomably large number of beings but beings who, more than any other creature on earth, share my nature. in some sense I find my stubborn desire to express unconditional love towards others, even the perpetrators of my abuse, as a radical rebellion against this weak causality you are trying to construct. to become misanthropic and despise humanity for my misfortune only ensures that my acting perpetuates the world that I hate, that I will become an agent that transforms others into misanthropes like me. effectively I become a human virus that infects countless people with a disease that will weaken the most powerful aspect of humankind— their ability to cooperate. if you believe in any kind of morality, isn’t this reprehensible? although I guess you’re beyond the point of caring what happens to this world in the future.

it’s amusing that you accused me of assuming you’ve lived a life of ease and then go on to assume the same of me. I admit happily I have no idea what kind of life you’ve lived, but I certainly have known many people who have had it much harder than me who do not find their life experience to be this master-key excuse for becoming a sociopath. I never said life was a privilege either, but I’m impressed with how brutally you’re beating that strawman

[Anonymous No.14718148]

>>14718140
(cont)
personally it just strikes me as a weakness of spirit, or perhaps a deeply ingrained desire to loathe others, that drives you to justify brazenly selfish behavior after having been victimized by the very same behavior. I’m deeply sorry for whatever you have experienced in life that triggered this in you, and I don’t mean to minimize it or dismiss it. go on living your life the way you think is best, anon. I can’t and wouldn’t even want to take that away from you. but I do want to illustrate the underlying hypocrisy and cowardice of your justifications for doing so. it’d be more honest to simply say you have no reason beyond self interest to act selfishly, than to imply that it’s the morally correct thing to do because of the manner in which you feel you’ve been wronged. you’re essentially pleading your innocence while you hold the smoking gun. to be honest with you I’m a nihilist. I don’t believe in some moral right or some higher power except for entropy. I don’t believe that I treat others with unconditional kindness for any reason other than that it makes me feel good. but I’m brave enough to state my intent as such. I’m not going to hide behind piety or justification, because I don’t believe it’s really possible to a priori justify any action. the environment internal and external to my body is the justification for my actions, and I’m comfortable admitting that both are about as inscrutable to me as your arrogance

[e No.14718158]

>>14718148
>personally it just strikes me as a weakness of spirit
I saw this and promptly dismissed the entirety of your posts. There's nothing more contemptable than an opinion based on "Well you just didn't tug your bootstraps" regardless of how it's phrased, and that absolutely is that sentiment. Welcome to yet another reason I am a misanthropist: People like you.

[Anonymous No.14718162]

>>14718158
I accept your concession.

[e No.14718168]

>>14718162
>I accept your concession.
Weird you'd accept that I conceded you're contemptable, but okay then.

[Anonymous No.14718172]

>>14718168
oh no you think I’m contemptible. time to hate all of humanity! it’s only logical after all.

[e No.14718174]

>>14718172
>oh no you think I’m contemptible. time to hate all of humanity! it’s only logical after all.
Aren't you the one who JUST WROTE a whole diatribe about not "hiding behind justifications"? Now you want justifications? Mixed messages pal.

Anyway, go spin narcissistic yarns about how strong your spirit is and how special you are to someone who cares.

[Anonymous No.14718181]

>>14718174
it continues to be amusing to me that you’re attacking me personally instead of addressing my argument. I want to believe you’ve got more fight in you to defend your own cowardice, but I guess you’re proving me wrong. I never implied my spirit was strong, or that yours was weak, I literally stated that
>it just strikes me
a turn of phrase which is meant to identify a knee jerk reaction, that I elaborate on in my reply. and I even offer my sympathy to whatever mysterious life events have degenerated you into this beast like form, something you obviously are incapable of doing.

I love you, namefag. sincerely I do. I just wish you would recognize the harm you are causing to yourself by taking an active role in perpetuating the behavior that destroyed your ability to reason.

[e No.14718186]

>>14718181
>it continues to be amusing to me that you’re attacking me personally instead of addressing my argument.
Christ this is boring. Your whole central message was you're special snowflake and people who disagree are inferior. You reiterate that in this post as well. Do you think anyone is tricked by this narcissistic facade?

[Anonymous No.14718194]

>>14718186
>Your whole central message was you're special snowflake and people who disagree are inferior.
I literally, literally, wrote the exact opposite of this. you’re kicking that strawman’s ass tho. keep at it.

[Anonymous No.14718210]

>>14718174
>>14718181
>>14718186
>>14718194
get a fucking room you faggots

[Anonymous No.14718216]

>>14718210
personally I’d love to euler the namefag’s anus and show him how constant my natural log really is

[Anonymous No.14718243]

It has early communism vibes.
Will lead to genocide and people saying it wasn't real effective altruism.

[Anonymous No.14718378]

>>14718243
Anything left of Atlas Shrugged has early communism vibes to you

[Anonymous No.14720302]

Also known as bantu maxing