jsomae

Bayesianism is about reconciling your squishy priors with hard math. If there's a round peg and a square hole, the square hole is Frequentism.

I don't understand your point about Bill Gates. You're saying he had one plan, but then found another plan worked better. What does this have to do with EA? Givewell isn't an armchair-thinktank, it does pretty solid research and analysis comparing the effectiveness of real-world charities that already exist.

The loss of USAID was really bad. Here's EA Scott Alexander talking about just how bad the scaling back of USAID is. If there were self-proclaimed EA's involved with villifying USAID, that is ironic indeed.

Socialism requires a popular consensus to function. You can’t impose a collective project by executive fiat.

Well I agree. I don't have executive fiat. I'd like to increase the amount of popular buy-in. This is one of the main reasons I post on Lemmy. However, that socialism requires concensus whereas charity does not -- this is exactly Ozy Brennan's point. So I think that we don't disagree at all. Ozy's observation is that EA charity organizations generally focus on the opposite of buy-in; they look for areas of neglect -- places where big strides can be made because other people aren't working hard on those problems yet. Perhaps because they sound strange. Like electrocuting shrimp so they don't feel pain when they die in factory farms (yes this is a real charity).

interesting. Well if people want these released, they better get released soon before it becomes plausible to claim it's deepfake.

Well that's why I said "essentially." Specifically, I meant the observable result. I agree that it's not charity if it's mandatory. I'm okay with highway robbery if the spoils are divided fairly. ("Fair" doesn't necessarily mean "evenly," though.)

I didn't mean to be critical. I thought it was very funny actually.

I know. It's just still more than I expected.

Nothing lasts [...] are we just amusing ourselves until death?

It seems to me like you are of the opinion that the finiteness of life robs it of meaning. If so, why not contribute to longevity research? It's only been a couple decades since we learned how telomeres relate to senescence. If enough people work on the problem or donate to it, we very well might be able to crack immortality before you croak. At the very least, that will give you a few more centuries to figure out what the meaning of life is.

You might object that immortality would lead to great wealth inequality, and you'd rather live a finite life than an unfair life. You can only believe this if you believe that the finality of life does not ultimately make life worthless. In which case, why not contribute to the cause of socialism?

I started using LeechBlock to limit the amount of time spent on social media including lemmy, it's been really helpful. Inspired by this video. Has helped me.

Thanks for this one, a really valuable find:

What files are they exactly? Is it just, like, his list of contacts, or there something else?

You're right to question the boiling. I was thinking of death by suffocation in heated steam. Boiling is not the technically correct term.

Here are some more sources that nearly all livestock live in factory farms: [Our World in Data, PETA,]; there are a lot more I can find searching the web but they mostly seem to link back to the Sentience Institute's research. OWiD's is based on SI's research, and I suspect PETA's claim is based off SI's as well. More importantly, I haven't found any claim that the proportion is lower than 90%, or even anyone challenging SI's figures. Do you have reason to doubt this? And if so, can you find any source? It seems plausible to me just based on the fact that factory farming is vastly more efficient than other methods, and most people aren't picky about such things. Just as a prior, I would expect that the vast majority of livestock are found in the most efficient types of farms.

Without any attempt to describe the methodology used for their estimates.

I mean they literally have their calculations available right there as an easily-viewable google sheets link. And the data source is clearly stated: "these estimates use the 2022 Census of Agriculture and EPA definitions of CAFOs to estimate the number of US farmed land vertebrates who are in CAFOs ("factory farms")."

You’d be trying to get that particular farm shut down, get laws passed to prevent that from happening. But you’re not doing that

Who is not doing that? Me specifically or animal rights people in general? I don't see why shutting down a particular farm would be very helpful, the scale of the problem is incredibly massive; passing laws would be much more effective. I would like to see laws passed, though, to stop these kinds of abuses. What would make you think I am not interested in that?

I know. It's still more elephants than I expected.

I'll read the rebuttal of EA, but I'll trade you if you read this EA unmanifesto.

Effective altruism distills all of ethics into an overriding variable: suffering.

This is actually not true. Givewell, for instance, publishes their findings as spreadsheets and lets you set weights on different aspects of human experience you consider to be good or bad.

Effective altruism discounts the ethical dimensions of relationships, the rich braid of elements that make up a “good life,” and the moral worth of a species or a wetland.

This is also just objectively not true and suggests to me you've never even talked to an effective altruist. But it is generally believed by EAs that horrible suffering, such as the kinds of suffering caused by easily-preventable illnesses, is much worse than any of the subtle and varied experiences of a good life which can be bought with the same amount of money are good. So if you just want to "do good," donate to stopping horrible illnesses before donating to subtler causes.

But setting that aside, the idea of charity is rooted in the theory that you need a popular buy-in before you can achieve significant lasting change.

I actually think this is the idea of socialism, not charity. Ozy Brennan again, on difference between leftism and EA:

I think neglectedness is actually the core disagreement between effective altruists and many leftists [...] Leftists emphasize organizing and mass participation. From a leftist perspective, all things equal, the fact that a movement is big is a point in favor of joining it. Leftists believe that nothing you do is going to do much good unless it’s part of a broad, coordinated effort to permanently shift the balance of power. [...] From an effective altruist perspective, all things equal, the fact that a movement is big is a point against joining it: if lots of people are working on janitorial justice, probably the problem is already well-handled.

I don't actually believe this about leftism personally, but I think this should be taken evidence against charity being rooted in the need for a popular buy-in.

When you’re relying on a few plutocrats to dictate philanthropic social policy, you’re banking heavily on their omniscience.

Agreed.