There are many definitions of economic systems. There is subsistence economy, communal economy, capitalist economy, etc.
For those interested in altruism, it should be noted that altruism itself, as a productive human activity, can be considered a potential large-scale economic system.

Obviously, in capitalism, altruism has little value, even if one considers one's fellow man as a potential producer-consumer of goods in an ever-expanding market. But in socialism, which claims that all economic activity serves the common good, we find ourselves in the field of dilemmas typical of game theory. If we all contribute to the common good out of our own self-interest... we will all try to obtain the greatest good from the system, contributing as little as possible. Therefore, socialism does not really serve the common good. Not, at least, with human beings.

The only economic system that would seem to really tend towards the common good would be one based on human altruism. In this sense, the theory of reciprocal altruism in ethology is of special interest, because animals, unlike human beings, do not act on the basis of reflexive behavior, but rather instinctive behavior. If the system of reciprocal altruism works sometimes in animals, it is not because they consider the convenience of this, but because their instinctive behavior patterns are the result of evolution.

For this reason, evolutionary psychologists do not consider human altruistic behavior based on reciprocity, but rather as an internalized behavior most likely based on culture, not on the basis of biological evolution, as in the case of animals. The typical example is that of the customer who gives a good tip in a restaurant to which he knows he will never return (which excludes reciprocity).

The apparent conclusion of all this is that if we really want an economy for the common good, we need to explore the field of human motivations for real altruistic behavior and the field of emotional - not material - gratifications for real altruistic behavior in our society, and this can only happen based on cultural changes

Today there are many individuals who act altruistically but they do so for different motivations. Obviously, no one acts against their own interests (not even altruistic people) but not all of us are interested in the same gratifications for our behavior. Many act altruistically for prestige reasons and others for religious beliefs. Both motivations are unstable and unpromising.

The most logical thing is to be interested in those people who act altruistically "to feel good about themselves" ... as is the case of the generous customer in the restaurant who will never return (of course, this altruistic act is just a relevant anecdote, but it does not express a systematic pattern of internalized altruistic behavior).

The famous study by Samuel and Pearl Oliner on "altruistic personality" seems to conclude that this type of behavior originates in the family environment, which has a much more acute impact on the formation of effective moral behavior than conventional institutionalized education.

Not all of us can be born into family environments that contribute to forming us emotionally as altruists. And, furthermore, the Oliner study focuses on a situation of extreme social emergency (the Shoah).

If we are motivated to act for a better world, and we know that the best way to do so is to expand an altruistic economic system, the logical conclusion is that the key element in this social change has to be exploring the possibilities of promoting genuine altruistic behavior as a cultural pattern. Altruistic behavior should work  on a large scale based on what we already know that can be intentionally modified in the cultural environment.  Our emotional reactions of moral nature and our rational capacity to accurately and unprejudicedly evaluate the social environment are all shaped by cultural patterns of behavior. And we can act  and participate consciously in cultural evolution by many means.

What has never been carried out is an unprejudiced discussion of cultural change strategies in the sense of moral improvement. We do have educational resources for children and youth, plus the already known mechanisms for the diffusion of moral values ​​within conventional culture. But the unspectacular results of all this have been visible for many years now.

Other types of mechanisms for changing behavior that are already known and very effective, and which have only been used so far by religious movements or violent organizations, have never been practiced for moral improvement - altruistic behavior capable of generating an effective altruistic economic system.

Let us recall the already known effect of religious conversions of "hardened criminals" within prisons, which leads to changes from antisocial to prosocial behavior, and of course, in the opposite direction (from prosocial to antisocial) and unfortunately with much greater ease, the effect of moral brutalization that is carried out in violent organizations such as criminal gangs and even certain military units (in the "Full Metal Jacket" style). These kinds of mechanisms were obviously already explored before the emergence of the academic discipline of psychology, but they have never been systematically used for the development of altruistic behavior in a genuine sense. History shows us some interesting cases regarding the deliberate change from antisocial to prosocial behavior, such as the "spiritual exercises" of the Jesuits... which in turn were inspired by Kempis's "Imitation of Christ". Religious behavior does not necessarily aim at altruistic behavior, but some religions deliberately emphasize aggression control strategies and practices of altruism and empathy. So far, no non-religious ideological movement has focused on this issue.


It makes no sense to be altruistic and at the same time dependent on prejudices and conventions.

Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Yes!

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/aCEuvHrqzmBroNQPT/the-evolution-towards-the-blank-slate

Consequently, we suggest that the concept of utilitarian impartiality must be replaced by that of “inclusive reciprocity”. Considering the well-being of everyone equally, making no difference between those who belong to a reciprocity scheme and those who do not is non-sustainable. On the other hand, the universalism of utilitarian ethics can be maintained by keeping reciprocity schemes open to all. A human group with a pledge for mutual support and open to those who are willing to assume those obligations regardless of their origin could be sustainable and even could be close to be the social version of a Darwinian optimal replicator.

Thank you for your comment. I start from the idea that the most effective altruism is not based so much on mutual support - in the material sense - as on participation within a culture of altruistic values ​​where support is above all of an emotional, affective nature. We would then be more in the field of "virtue ethics" than of a utilitarian type. Economic acts would be a necessary material consequence of an emotional state. Here I am with Hume: reason is the slave of the passions (but we can rationally shape our own passions: that is psychology).
The most intelligent altruistic action would be to help build that emotional state that would compose an altruistic ethos. That was what the so-called "compassionate religions" did before, but today we have more cognitive instruments... apart from those they already had. Jonathan Haidt comments that the ancients did not know much about science but were good psychologists, and he himself names an "emotion of elevation" as a motivator of behavior.
On the other hand, in books such as Larissa MacFarquhart's "Strangers Drowning" we find contemporary evidence of sufficiently motivated altruistic actors. What is missing is an ideology of behavioural improvement.

Curated and popular this week
Sam Anschell
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
*Disclaimer* I am writing this post in a personal capacity; the opinions I express are my own and do not represent my employer. I think that more people and orgs (especially nonprofits) should consider negotiating the cost of sizable expenses. In my experience, there is usually nothing to lose by respectfully asking to pay less, and doing so can sometimes save thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per hour. This is because negotiating doesn’t take very much time[1], savings can persist across multiple years, and counterparties can be surprisingly generous with discounts. Here are a few examples of expenses that may be negotiable: For organizations * Software or news subscriptions * Of 35 corporate software and news providers I’ve negotiated with, 30 have been willing to provide discounts. These discounts range from 10% to 80%, with an average of around 40%. * Leases * A friend was able to negotiate a 22% reduction in the price per square foot on a corporate lease and secured a couple months of free rent. This led to >$480,000 in savings for their nonprofit. Other negotiable parameters include: * Square footage counted towards rent costs * Lease length * A tenant improvement allowance * Certain physical goods (e.g., smart TVs) * Buying in bulk can be a great lever for negotiating smaller items like covid tests, and can reduce costs by 50% or more. * Event/retreat venues (both venue price and smaller items like food and AV) * Hotel blocks * A quick email with the rates of comparable but more affordable hotel blocks can often save ~10%. * Professional service contracts with large for-profit firms (e.g., IT contracts, office internet coverage) * Insurance premiums (though I am less confident that this is negotiable) For many products and services, a nonprofit can qualify for a discount simply by providing their IRS determination letter or getting verified on platforms like TechSoup. In my experience, most vendors and companies
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Forethought[1] is a new AI macrostrategy research group cofounded by Max Dalton, Will MacAskill, Tom Davidson, and Amrit Sidhu-Brar. We are trying to figure out how to navigate the (potentially rapid) transition to a world with superintelligent AI systems. We aim to tackle the most important questions we can find, unrestricted by the current Overton window. More details on our website. Why we exist We think that AGI might come soon (say, modal timelines to mostly-automated AI R&D in the next 2-8 years), and might significantly accelerate technological progress, leading to many different challenges. We don’t yet have a good understanding of what this change might look like or how to navigate it. Society is not prepared. Moreover, we want the world to not just avoid catastrophe: we want to reach a really great future. We think about what this might be like (incorporating moral uncertainty), and what we can do, now, to build towards a good future. Like all projects, this started out with a plethora of Google docs. We ran a series of seminars to explore the ideas further, and that cascaded into an organization. This area of work feels to us like the early days of EA: we’re exploring unusual, neglected ideas, and finding research progress surprisingly tractable. And while we start out with (literally) galaxy-brained schemes, they often ground out into fairly specific and concrete ideas about what should happen next. Of course, we’re bringing principles like scope sensitivity, impartiality, etc to our thinking, and we think that these issues urgently need more morally dedicated and thoughtful people working on them. Research Research agendas We are currently pursuing the following perspectives: * Preparing for the intelligence explosion: If AI drives explosive growth there will be an enormous number of challenges we have to face. In addition to misalignment risk and biorisk, this potentially includes: how to govern the development of new weapons of mass destr
jackva
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
 [Edits on March 10th for clarity, two sub-sections added] Watching what is happening in the world -- with lots of renegotiation of institutional norms within Western democracies and a parallel fracturing of the post-WW2 institutional order -- I do think we, as a community, should more seriously question our priors on the relative value of surgical/targeted and broad system-level interventions. Speaking somewhat roughly, with EA as a movement coming of age in an era where democratic institutions and the rule-based international order were not fundamentally questioned, it seems easy to underestimate how much the world is currently changing and how much riskier a world of stronger institutional and democratic backsliding and weakened international norms might be. Of course, working on these issues might be intractable and possibly there's nothing highly effective for EAs to do on the margin given much attention to these issues from society at large. So, I am not here to confidently state we should be working on these issues more. But I do think in a situation of more downside risk with regards to broad system-level changes and significantly more fluidity, it seems at least worth rigorously asking whether we should shift more attention to work that is less surgical (working on specific risks) and more systemic (working on institutional quality, indirect risk factors, etc.). While there have been many posts along those lines over the past months and there are of course some EA organizations working on these issues, it stil appears like a niche focus in the community and none of the major EA and EA-adjacent orgs (including the one I work for, though I am writing this in a personal capacity) seem to have taken it up as a serious focus and I worry it might be due to baked-in assumptions about the relative value of such work that are outdated in a time where the importance of systemic work has changed in the face of greater threat and fluidity. When the world seems to