All of LiaH's Comments + Replies

Thanks for taking the time to reply! And thanks for acknowledging that it's a good thing to advocate for a ceasefire.

Here is my rationale for it being the best thing:

  1. I know it is naive and simplistic to say, but war kills and peace saves lives, no matter the circumstance, parties, or reason for the conflict. If we believe that every human life is valued equally, saving the lives of even the most egregious combatants is worthwhile. 
  2. A ceasefire would mitigate further deaths in Palestine, right now. True, protests to end the conflict haven't been effecti
... (read more)

Thanks for your reply; I may be naive, but I think even engaging in the conversation is a start. Even by replying to this post helps it to be seen and considered.

I think that like you, every ‘ordinary person’ downplays their role. Human rights movements, including civil rights, anti-apartheid, and suffrage all happened because of actions of ordinary people. Sure, by yourself you may not have massive influence, but if you share with your social group, your friends and family may pick it up and share with their social group. I agree that time and energy aren... (read more)

Is there any sound, rational argument against calling for a ceasefire?

Not engaging in politics only upholds the status quo of structural power

Thank you for your reply. I am sorry to hear about your poor personal healthcare experience. 

Regarding your other points:

"Cost-effectiveness doesn't mean only efficiency. I think when you're trying to do the most good, ditching the use of cost-effectiveness is quite hard because what will you use instead?"

Equity. I am suggesting a paradigm shift to considering equity as the most important goal. It means spending more on those less fortunate, but sometimes cost-effectiveness and equity align. For example, Give Well donates to low income countries becau... (read more)

1
Berke
1y
Even when you are trying advance equity, there will be certain charities that are more cost-effective and "efficient", efficient in the sense that they'll be successful. Again, if you want to do human rights lobbying, probably doing that in the US would probably be more expensive compared to a relatively globally irrevelant low-income country x where there isn't much lobbying. Cost-effectiveness isn't the endpoint of EA, it's a method that enables you to choosse the best intervention when you have scarce money. For billionaire philanthropy, there are a lot of moral theories that don't assume what you assume about democracy or assume billionaires shouldn't make decisions about public good.Most consequentalists doesn't assume automatically or a priori that billionaires should be less powerful, their stance on this would be based on more empirical truths but still, this part of your post also has a moral assumption involved in it. Libertarian-ish moral views, prioritarianism, utilitarianism and not a theory but a view called high-stakes instrumentalism  are all views that are quite popular and we should integrate into our normative uncertainty model.  You can check this blogpost on why some people aren't  against billionaire philanthropy. I personally wouldn't want state or masses to prevent people from spending their money as they'd like, many people from countries that are experiencing democratic backsliding or have low trust in government too wouldn't agree with you. In Turkey, it's really hard to have abortions outside of private hospitals for instance, universal healthcare for the globally disadvantaged people means growing a state that's usually corrupt and anti-liberal. I'm not saying this is defintiely wrong, we should be less confident of our views when we're talking about this issue.   Aiming higher in our altruistic goals doesn't alleviate the requirement of having a theory of change and noticing the skulls, there are many organizations trying to do what y

Also this report that big pharma R&D costs are vastly overblown; it is what I had suspected, now upheld by research. 

Strong upvote! I came here to say something similar.  One of your most compelling points is addressing the needs and wants of the intended beneficiaries, in contrast with pursuing the most economically efficient cause area. I think there is significant moral weight in ensuring people have what they want and need, which cannot be commodified. 

-1
brb243
1y
Thanks!

Peter Singer has done the math, and it is possible to reduce by half global hunger and extreme poverty, with modest numbers (old article, but I just found it):

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/magazine/17charity.t.html

While I am here, humbly, I need to ask a burning question: Your advocacy and behaviour are incongruent with respect to consumption; you consume in a degrowth pattern, but advocate for growth, why?

Thank you!!! For efficiency, I almost only read books by audio now, so as self-declared expert, I agree books read by the author are superior because the author understands the meaning, inflection, and nuance in their words.  I think it added value to WWOTF. 

I most recently read Winners Take All by Anand Giridharadas, read by the author, and cannot help but feel moral unease about EA position in the philanthropic world right now.  He  makes a defensible argument for politics as the means of doing the most good.

1
LiaH
2y
While I am here, humbly, I need to ask a burning question: Your advocacy and behaviour are incongruent with respect to consumption; you consume in a degrowth pattern, but advocate for growth, why?
LiaH
2y-1
2
1

I would be suspicious of anyone (the libertarians you describe) who claims to be protecting children by endorsing child labour. 

Fair point. Although, I think I did also mean “dumbed down longtermism”. Every far longtermist threat, like engineered pandemics, AI alignment, existential risk, great power war, environmental degradation, etc, also threatens current children. Possibly regular people (non-EAs) would understand the threat better/empathize more easily if it were a threat to children vs concepts of future people.

Thank you for the informative comment.  I learned two things today - "adultism", and the difference between disenfranchised agent and patient. 

I really appreciated your linked question/comment about relating abolition, suffrage, to non-human animals and future people. I agree! Do you think of my association between children and future people is a closer match?

Although I would 100% endorse increasing the agency of children and youth, I can't help but understand adultism as less of a prejudice, and more of a matter-of-fact with respect to small chi... (read more)

I appreciate your questions on both of these points.  

Tractability - Yes, I see the senate as the roadblock, depending on the party makeup within it. Of course, lobbying state-specific-laws might be more successful, but not as comprehensive. This is the reason I am suggesting going for the big goal. It is more about universal acknowledgement of child rights as agent-less future people. Even if the senate is destined to block it, do you see the possible value in bringing child rights to the agenda, raising the issue in the news, raising public awarenes... (read more)

4
ColdButtonIssues
2y
I'm skeptical of elevating children's rights in this way, because people already claim to care intensely about the value of children and their futures, but differ on how to do that. The UN wants to make it harder for kids to work, I can think of libertarians who disagree. Or education about sex and sexuality- both sides claim they are protecting children and so forth. With more novel concepts or trying to get people to widen their circle of concern to include animals or far future generations, I think maybe that's a worthwhile way to go. But people care about kids a lot- or at least claim to! Maybe there's some smart solution but I can't think of good ways to advance your goal. 

Thanks for pointing out where my argument lacks clarity. I can understand the confusion on the points you have made if the primary goal of ratification were benefit to US kids. I am suggesting the primary goal of US ratification is universal consensus, with the benefit to US kids as more of a positive externality. 

The same is true about  freeing mothers from exclusive care of children; it would not be the primary goal, but a positive externality. An example here would be in a low income country with no universal health care, a mother must make th... (read more)

I agree with this entirely. I submitted a post in which I speak to this very idea, (not as clearly and pointedly as you have done):

"What I see missing, is promotion of the universal benefits of equality, altruism, and goodwill. Here I mean simple altruism, not necessarily effective altruism. Imagine if only 20% of the population worked for the greater good. Or if every person spent 20% of their time at it? Convincing more of the world population to do right by each other, the environment, animals, and the future, in whatever capacity possible, seems to me ... (read more)

Is growth the best approach to maximizing the good we can do? What is the effect on the environment? How much consumption is too much?  Where does this leave future generations?

What if instead low income countries were granted debt relief, so their policies were not driven by creditors? What about a global minimum wage?  Or tax justice, like a universal minimum corporate tax? And what to do about climate reparations? 

These ideas are not my own, they are from this podcast:

https://soundcloud.com/citationsneeded/episode-58-the-neoliberal-optimi... (read more)

Their assessment seems to be three small policy spheres, rather than global health policy, which is larger in scale. 

Global health policy is neglected EA-aligned work. This post is short because the attachment is long; if you read the whole article, and disagree that global health policy work is useful, I am interested to hear your reasons. 

The political origins of health inequity: prospects for change

1
Tom Barnes
2y
GiveWell have looked into Global Health regulation - see more here: https://www.givewell.org/research/public-health-regulation-update-August-2021

Is growth the best approach to maximizing the good we can do? What is the effect on the environment? How much consumption is too much?

What if low income countries were granted debt relief, so their policies were not driven by creditors? What about a global minimum wage?  Or tax justice, like a universal minimum corporate tax? And what to do about climate reparations?

None of these ideas are my own, they are from this podcast:

https://soundcloud.com/citationsneeded/episode-58-the-neoliberal-optimism-industry

I would also wonder about the EA response to "poor countries don't need charity, they need justice"

4
Kamila Tomaskova
1y
A bit late, but perhaps you will find it interesting anyway - I have seen a couple of posts discussing Jason Hickel's ideas on the EA forum. For example these posts are really interesting: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/hptEKkvtFgCGeFjw8/the-case-for-green-growth-skepticism-and-gdp-agnosticism https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/RnmsaX5TEDoaH6XcB/systemic-change-global-poverty-eradication-and-a-career-plan

"Value change" type work - gradually shifting civilizational values to those more in line with human flourishing - might fall into this category too.

This is the first I have seen reference to norm changing in EA. Is there other writing on this idea?

This is great!  Also, I am appreciative to learn you have been working hard on diversity  :)

Interesting! He is an outlier. I would be very interested to learn his story, if possible.

4
Gavin
2y
https://intelligence.org/2018/02/28/sam-harris-and-eliezer-yudkowsky/
LiaH
2y13
0
0

You are right, I missed the "next" button.  I did wonder why there was so little discussion on the forum about fair and equal society. I believe you made the comment I found which questions its value.

you are right,  it is an excellent summary I had not found.

This is excellent. I have a question I hope you include in your ongoing research:

Are these psychological traits fixed, or can they change?

Background: It is possible my case is unique, but I have changed toward these effectiveness-focused, and expansive altruism traits; having discovered EA in June 2021 I have changed my career path, returned to school to pursue an EA career, taken the GWWC pledge, etc. As recently as 7 years ago, I would not have identified with these traits.  Seeing the photo of the dead Syrian refugee boy , Alan Kurdi, (trigger warn... (read more)

Agreed, it seems to be escalating fast. Although it is debatable whether the attack on Ukraine was expected, what transpires is becoming more obvious, with Putin's thinly veiled threats of retaliation if NATO defends Ukraine. I have seen excellent arguments against No Fly Zone because enforcement of said NFZ necessitates actually shooting down planes.  

Which makes me wonder about the feasibility of a peaceful solution. Sam Bankman-Fried transferred money to the Ukrainian people, and Elon Musk established Starlink over Ukraine.  How effective woul... (read more)

yes, I agree EAs have different opinions; I was seeking to understand the one I do not follow. Maybe asking for the "general" EA view was the wrong phrasing.

Your reply explains well why an individual or small organization might want to protect patent rights to capitalize, or at the very least preserve investment, to allow for future R&D. 

Where I cannot understand the purpose of securing IP rights, is in situations where there is philanthropic money to fund the R&D.  If philanthropists fund the original R&D, then "someone else can come... (read more)

1
Harrison Durland
2y
I don't have much experience with philanthropic R&D+patenting situations, but one potential reason for that would be to at least partially mitigate the investment costs, allowing  the philanthropic investor to also invest the money in other fields. In this sense, even some modest degree of profit (~4%) might be socially optimal. However, it's true that any investor in such a situation needs to consider the costs and benefits carefully--and especially in situations where, for example, someone else could contribute with manufacturing innovations to reduce manufacturing costs, I think such a philanthropic investor probably should discuss the situation with the manufacturer to get more information. As to why it might be justified in some circumstances to make some profit: * Profit can be reinvested later/elsewhere to save other lives: Obviously, I don't think "profit" in a purely selfish, monetary sense should take precedence over lives. However, a philanthropic investor may be able to turn some profit into life-saving (or otherwise beneficial) innovations in the future, in which case it's not about money vs. lives, it's about [money which may be used to save future lives] vs. saving lives right now. * Philanthropic-investment obligations: I think there are also a few investment situations/organizations that basically are semi-charitable, in that they tell investors something like "You shouldn't invest in us if you want to make a serious profit, but we will try to break even while also maximizing wellbeing with your investment," in which case it might be a matter of [breaking your promises to stakeholders which results in you getting less money that can be used to save future lives] vs. saving lives right now. Ultimately, I think it's important to evaluate things on a case-by-case basis, and I certainly am not categorically opposed to patents, and I believe that in some cases it might seem like the best thing to do would be to ignore IP/patent restrictions, but tha

What is the general EA view on intellectual property rights? Based on the downvotes I get for advocating TRIPs waivers for vaccines, there are at least some on the forum who value IP rights. Why? What is the rationale?

1
Harrison Durland
2y
First and foremost, I don't want to characterize EAs in general. However, that being said, my personal views on IP rights is derived from basic microeconomics: if you can't patent/etc. your inventions, then someone else can come along and copy whatever it is you spent time and money developing—and sell it at a cheaper cost since they didn't have to pay for most of the research and development. In some cases you might plausibly still be able to make some money, but in many cases the original inventor will struggle to pay off their R&D costs.  And no return on investment = no initial investment (unless it was a purely charitable endeavor) = no product.
LiaH
2y14
1
0

Be that as it may, removal of IP barriers still makes pharmaceuticals more accessible; IP barriers were one of the main reasons for lack of access to HIV/AIDS medications, before they were challenged.  I do not see a good reason for EA projects to withhold patent rights, if the purpose of creating the vaccine is doing the most good for the most people. A donation of patent rights is a donation of time and money.

This an inspiring project, and one I have wondered why EA has not addressed before now. I assume the IP rights will be waived to increase the ability to scale? Giving up IP rights is so much more valuable than giving hours and money, and seems to me to be EA aligned. 

A parallel project to consider would be evaluation of trust in vaccines in LMICs. I have seen full lots of vaccines wasted in LICs because people do  not trust the government, big pharma, health care workers, etc. It may be exclusive to the conflict zones in which I have worked,  but vaccine refusal was at least as big a problem as lack of vaccines.  Vaccines only work if they are used.

(I am not from Alvea):

To my knowledge, IP wasn't the limiting factor over the last two years. For the big two vaccines, it was the lack of facilities that could handle mRNA encapsulation. People say that the Gates Foundation did damage by making AZ proprietary, but in practice it was licensed very permissively and they ended up producing more than demand. (It could still have been the wrong thing ex ante, i.e. before we knew its disappointing effectiveness.)

You have an interesting idea; if socialist theories have a lot in common with EA thinkers, but have consistently failed, can EA create/devise a governance system that works better? Maybe this is a rhetorical question, but I would sure love to hear from EAs who know history and politics better than I do.  From my perspective also as a non-historian, the failures seem to have been in the leadership.

It does. I am impressed.

I only have issue with the semantics of your first sentence. I would suggest no large-scale economic system has ever existed that was successful at maximizing human wellbeing; I think socialist ideals intend to maximize human welfare, but have always failed in implementation. I might say the same for the great religions, though, excellent analogy. 

Thank you for taking the time. 

3
Aaron Gertler
2y
I'm glad this was helpful! You may be right on the semantics. Rather than attributing intent to a system, I should have said "no large-scale system whose implementers were seriously trying to maximize wellbeing". Even at the beginning of well-intentioned socialist revolutions, it seems like state economic control typically led to a focus on military buildup, or disastrous economic policies, or other things that weren't done with general welfare in mind. Socialist theorists often had a lot in common with EA thinkers, but the failures of implementation/failure to take economic evidence seriously meant that the theory didn't get very far. (Caveat: This is a very un-nuanced take from a non-historian.)
3
Wouter Arrazola de Onate
2y
NO ... this group of economists is very limited and not representative. It holds only economists from the rich west, and does not include a single voice (from the many excellent economists specialised on the subject) from the South or from poor countries. Public Health is so much more than financial 

True, my mistake. Herd immunity is the public good. I would still suggest vaccines are the cheapest, safest, fastest, most equitable route to herd immunity. 

Agree with your concern that waiving IP rights is disincentive for pharmaceutical industry to R&D future medicines and vaccines, but it does not negate the fact that vaccines in a pandemic are a global public good.  It is about human rights.

Regarding the financial status of the vaccine companies, half of Pfizer's record-setting revenue in 2021 were from their vaccine.  

Although I agree fundamentally with the OP's suggestion for a fully public vaccine development, a concession might be a one year limit on TRIPs patents for vaccine, allowing profit before sharing the tech. 

2
LiaH
1y
Also this report that big pharma R&D costs are vastly overblown; it is what I had suspected, now upheld by research. 
1
Larks
2y
Vaccines are excludable (it is easy to largely prevent people from accessing them) and rivalrous (most of the benefit of the vaccine goes to the person being vaccinated, as transmission is reduced but still significant) and hence while they may have positive externalities they are not public goods.

I understood effective altruism is about doing the most good for the most people (sentient beings). The purpose of capitalism is control of industry by private owners, for profit.  I cannot reconcile the two purposes if fairness/equity is considered. 

8
Aaron Gertler
2y
As far as I know, no large-scale economic system has ever existed that made a serious attempt (to the extent that a system can "attempt" anything) to maximize human wellbeing. Every large-scale economic system hurts a lot of people in the course of its operation. Thus, asking whether EA is "compatible" with any economic system is a bit like asking whether EA is "compatible" with a particular religion — no religion has a credo that perfectly matches EA's, and EA and religion just don't overlap in a lot of places.  I'd think of it this way: You can reconcile EA with religion if you focus on the parts of your religion that are about doing good for other people. You can reconcile EA with being a Democrat if you support Democratic politicians whose policies seem evidence-based and highly impactful. You can reconcile EA with capitalism if you engage in business in a way that makes life better for people who deal with you. You can reconcile EA with socialism if you push for socialistic policies that have strong evidence backing their tendency to improve human welfare (or something like that). But EA is defined as "trying to do as much good as possible for other people", and nothing else is defined in quite the same way — no religion, no political party, and no economic system. In a practical sense, there are lots of capitalistic projects in the EA community that make use of market forces to generate good outcomes — Wave, which has vastly improved the banking system in Senegal and garnered massive popular support from the citizens of that country (who are quite happy to do business with them), may be the most prominent example. Does any of this answer part of your question?

How is effective altruism compatible with capitalism? 

6
Aaron Gertler
2y
Why would it not be?

Yes, I agree on the point that interventions are best assessed with cost-benefit analysis, rather than propping up inefficient institutions.  I was not necessarily suggesting support for WHO, only indicating that the  purported leader in global health is spending more time fundraising than leading. 

I, perhaps mistakenly, thought EA, particularly Open Phil, was about funding high risk, low yield, but fat tail causes, vs the "sure thing" that Give Well funds. 

For pandemic risk, what about funding campaigns to back the TRIPs waiver proposa... (read more)

Thank you, I have read the Global Health and Wellbeing portfolio and listened to Alexander Berger's podcast, but I am still left with the question, are they doing enough? Are their causes sufficiently broad?  Have they left stones unturned?  What innovative cause has been missed? I can't help but think this is a too-easy dismissal of the circumstance, and risks missing opportunities to save lives in very effective cause areas

Interesting metaphor. More interesting is that your summary of  Equity as the only endeavour on this ship which does not have a drawback, and which is supportive of the other efforts; could Equity support an Afghan girl to be a gifted Navigator, or more athletic Rowers to move the ship forward? Why would we not try? At the moment there are three Captains who are bickering

Yes! All this, and it was better summarized by you, thank you. I am looking for these answers. 

Yes, these are all sound counterpoints.  Together, they suggest the idea is at least, neglected.  I think your point 2 was also made by  Stefan_Schubert in a comment above. I would be very interested to see research in the area, if there is any.  I agree your points 1&3 are a problem if the number of altruistic people were finite, but what if everyone behaved altruistically, to the benefit of others? To the point that it would not matter if some people chose to donate to seeing eye dog charities?  

I can appreciate your argument... (read more)

I agree!  With both your points on renaming it "altruistic intent", and the reasons behind. 

I thought perhaps improving altruistic intent must be somewhere under the EA radar, but in the very superficial reading I have done to date, I had not found it. I will look more specifically now at broad longtermism. To be honest, I was also hoping the EA community had more skills in persuasion and politics, and was already working on it. 

Finally, thank you for acknowledging my neophyte attempts on a front page post. It took a lot of internal debate and self-talk to write it  ;)

Thanks for your comment,  and thanks for the excellent paper! I don't disagree with any of it. I am, perhaps, disappointed that you feel improving general altruism is too difficult to approach.  It was a question about which I have no information, so I would be very interested to read any literature you have available on the attempts and failures to do so. 

Regarding your second point, I also categorically agree that IF the number of altruistic people is limited, their efforts should always be directed to the most effective. I just cannot get... (read more)

3
Stefan_Schubert
3y
Thanks, that's kind! To be clear, we distinguish between altruism per se and moral expansiveness. You can be an altruist but have a narrow moral circle/be morally partial; and conversely you can be not so altruistic - sacrifice few resources for others -but distribute those few resources impartially. And I think that moral circle expansion is more tractable than increasing altruism - asking people to sacrifice substantially more resources to others. Also, I should make clear that I don't hold these views with a high degree of certainty.