That makes one wonder if, as a first approximation, anyone trying to make the world a better place via anything other than making money ought not to be trusted. Perhaps actively reviled. Put another way, being suspicious of anyone who doesn’t seem to have something better and more selfish to do.
Some people try to make the world a better place by showing a better alternative. If they're wrong, the only people who suffer are them, and whoever follows them of their own free will.
Others use force. If they're wrong, everyone suffers (except, funnily enough, the people forcing their views on others).
It's the latter that should be chucked overboard from any sane ship of state.
Heartily agree on the force part, and on the "we will do our thing and show you how much better it works" part.
What I had in mind, although didn't specify, was sort of like the EA people. The bailey of "if you are going to give money, give it to more effective causes" makes sense, but the motte curiously never seems to contain "use that money to start a business to sustainably employ poor people in a useful way" or "raise a small army and overthrow the shit kleptocracy government stopping you from starting that business in the poor country." Granted, ok, the second is a bit spicy (but logically consistent by their lights) but the former should be job 1. "I am going to make the world so much better people are going to pay me to do it and keep doing it," sounds highly likely to work; if you have to beg people to give you money to solve huge world problems, it seems like a strong sign the problem isn't relevant.
Ah. Well, in the case of EA, we're in telescopic philanthropy terroritory. The purpose isn't making the world a better place. It's self-aggrandizement via conspicuous altruism and the creation of dependents.
True, there is an important distinction between saying you want to make the world better and actually trying to do so. I think a lot of EA people, and people who donate to charities in general, do mean to do good for the world. Its just that it tends to go very badly, often by being coopted by those with no interest in good so much as control.
Maybe this is just a really roundabout way of saying altruism is bad, if only because it isn't real and very nasty things wear its representation as a mask.
Just to clarify, I mean "sustainably employ" in the sense that the goods or services produced by employing the people sell for enough to keep covering the worker's salaries, as opposed to having to beg for donations to pay them to do something no one values enough to pay them to do out of self interest.
Agreed, but they never admit that, and it seems relevant. If I start a business or get a new job, I am going to talk about how it is good for me. I am going to feel the need to justify the decision as good for me, even if it is just "I think it is worthwhile."
Causeheads seem to need to justify the decision as good for everyone else, and not them. You never hear them saying "I am a climate change activist because I own stock in a lot of green tech companies." That would be tacky and gross, even if true. Especially if true. Instead we are supposed to approve of them doing good for others with no regard to their personal benefit.
Maybe a shorter rule of thumb would be "Distrust anyone claiming to be an altruist."
Remember the good old days when people showed how much holier than thou they were by abstaining from anything fun and living in a hole somewhere? Maybe we could bring that back.
Not so clear-cut as mostly everywhere in human affairs:
What about doing good for the selfish reason of feeling good? Or for the sake of living in happier community with its obvious benefits for yourself? Selfishness once removed, as it were—is it still altruism? Or no-true-Scotsperson rears its/zer stubborn head here? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That is still consistent with our points. Particularly the living in a happier community bit, as that is closer, more personal, and one has more of a stake in it.
Long range doing good is all about feeling better about one's self, and the problem is that the actual doing good part isn't too necessary. It is going through the motions, such that the "doing good" part isn't what makes you feel good, but the seeming like you are doing good. In other words, contrary to the making a better community which you benefit from, and if you fail to make a better community you do not get the benefit, the feeling good part of long range benevolence is largely untethered to actually doing good. Your good feels are not based on having done good in fact, but on having done good in theory.
That makes one wonder if, as a first approximation, anyone trying to make the world a better place via anything other than making money ought not to be trusted. Perhaps actively reviled. Put another way, being suspicious of anyone who doesn’t seem to have something better and more selfish to do.
I think of it this way.
Some people try to make the world a better place by showing a better alternative. If they're wrong, the only people who suffer are them, and whoever follows them of their own free will.
Others use force. If they're wrong, everyone suffers (except, funnily enough, the people forcing their views on others).
It's the latter that should be chucked overboard from any sane ship of state.
Heartily agree on the force part, and on the "we will do our thing and show you how much better it works" part.
What I had in mind, although didn't specify, was sort of like the EA people. The bailey of "if you are going to give money, give it to more effective causes" makes sense, but the motte curiously never seems to contain "use that money to start a business to sustainably employ poor people in a useful way" or "raise a small army and overthrow the shit kleptocracy government stopping you from starting that business in the poor country." Granted, ok, the second is a bit spicy (but logically consistent by their lights) but the former should be job 1. "I am going to make the world so much better people are going to pay me to do it and keep doing it," sounds highly likely to work; if you have to beg people to give you money to solve huge world problems, it seems like a strong sign the problem isn't relevant.
Ah. Well, in the case of EA, we're in telescopic philanthropy terroritory. The purpose isn't making the world a better place. It's self-aggrandizement via conspicuous altruism and the creation of dependents.
True, there is an important distinction between saying you want to make the world better and actually trying to do so. I think a lot of EA people, and people who donate to charities in general, do mean to do good for the world. Its just that it tends to go very badly, often by being coopted by those with no interest in good so much as control.
Maybe this is just a really roundabout way of saying altruism is bad, if only because it isn't real and very nasty things wear its representation as a mask.
Just to clarify, I mean "sustainably employ" in the sense that the goods or services produced by employing the people sell for enough to keep covering the worker's salaries, as opposed to having to beg for donations to pay them to do something no one values enough to pay them to do out of self interest.
Agreed, but they never admit that, and it seems relevant. If I start a business or get a new job, I am going to talk about how it is good for me. I am going to feel the need to justify the decision as good for me, even if it is just "I think it is worthwhile."
Causeheads seem to need to justify the decision as good for everyone else, and not them. You never hear them saying "I am a climate change activist because I own stock in a lot of green tech companies." That would be tacky and gross, even if true. Especially if true. Instead we are supposed to approve of them doing good for others with no regard to their personal benefit.
Maybe a shorter rule of thumb would be "Distrust anyone claiming to be an altruist."
Remember the good old days when people showed how much holier than thou they were by abstaining from anything fun and living in a hole somewhere? Maybe we could bring that back.
Not so clear-cut as mostly everywhere in human affairs:
What about doing good for the selfish reason of feeling good? Or for the sake of living in happier community with its obvious benefits for yourself? Selfishness once removed, as it were—is it still altruism? Or no-true-Scotsperson rears its/zer stubborn head here? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That is still consistent with our points. Particularly the living in a happier community bit, as that is closer, more personal, and one has more of a stake in it.
Long range doing good is all about feeling better about one's self, and the problem is that the actual doing good part isn't too necessary. It is going through the motions, such that the "doing good" part isn't what makes you feel good, but the seeming like you are doing good. In other words, contrary to the making a better community which you benefit from, and if you fail to make a better community you do not get the benefit, the feeling good part of long range benevolence is largely untethered to actually doing good. Your good feels are not based on having done good in fact, but on having done good in theory.
💬 Your good feels are not based on having done good in fact, but on having done good in theory.
Obviously. [Captain, the honorific address fits here somewhere 😇]
Yet in the eyes of the confused beholder it's a different story, ie your theory = zir lived reality 😉