Peter Singer: The why and how of effective altruism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 тра 2013
- If you're lucky enough to live without want, it's a natural impulse to help others in need. But, asks philosopher Peter Singer, what's the most effective way to give charitably? He talks through some surprising thought experiments to help you balance emotion and practicality -- and make the biggest impact with whatever you can share.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at www.ted.com/translate
Follow TED news on Twitter: / tednews
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / tedtalksdirector
I have a co-worker in China that told me a lot of people are afraid of helping people in the streets as it's common to be caught up in the accident and blamed and framed to be the perpetrator and sued.
+no good Sadly enough, you are correct. See this recent Slate story: www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/09/why_drivers_in_china_intentionally_kill_the_pedestrians_they_hit_china_s.html ¶¶ Check out *ECON COW* (search it on UA-cam!), a new educational UA-cam channel devoted to economics. I have 5 videos so far, including one on effective altruism titled *The Price of Saving a Life ... is $3,340*. Let me know what you think! Thanks!
+Econ Cow I didnt know of such practices. Thanks for the info on Chinese hit and hit and hit and run drivers. Terrible.
Ok, so we just let children die in the street, great
It's not morally relevant in Peter Singer's introduction to his audience. He's exemplifies a sister scenario in the Shallow Pond Paradox.
The implied liability argument does not stand up. There are cameras everywhere in China. There is no individualism in China and the west is heading in the same direction through political correctness governed by the new social recinstructionists. China's deep controls on everyone means that there is no individual value. You only need to see the way they treat animals. They have lost ALL empathy to humans and animals. This is a very dangerous direction of travel as this is viral in nature.
Life changing. Thanks.
I'm a guy that likes philosophy, math, and studied economics at university. Now I work in the finance sector. This makes total sense to me, I have been searching for ways to live more morally. Even began a career change, but changed my mind.
So, my plan now is to follow Peter's advice.
You don't even know what morality is. Educate yourself and stop being a guilt-ridden moron. YOUR happiness is the purpose of life and YOUR life is the foundation of morality.
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html
@@exnihilonihilfit6316 Lmao take your sci-fi morality somewhere else
Cool! Good luck with your donations. I hope you make a difference.
So how has it been so far? It's been three years :-)
I do wonder, though, about the harm caused by banking and the finance sector. If you are making money from helping companies that cause harm (fossil fuel companies, tobacco companies, animal agriculture, to name some of the worst), does that get outweighed by then using your income for effective altruism?
My Ethics class brought me here.
Andrew Mills my philosophy class brought me here :)
Ditto.
Michael singer
Same bro
You're being brainwashed. This is pure evil. Altruism is pure evil. It teaches you to be a guilt-ridden ape. This is not what morality is for! Educate yourself, and save your one life.
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html
I don't know why people don't like Singer - surely his ideas are a logical extension of preference utilitarianism - I mean it would make sense that the ethical framework that favors maximizing preferences would be one that advocates for charitable actions. But even on the whole animal rights part of his philosophy, I mean the tenet of utilitarianism is really that the moral action strives towards maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain - and it's not as if humans are the only species that can feel pain or some form of pleasure. You might not like Singer's ideas, you might not think they're practically feasible, but you have to admit they're pretty logically consistent.
Any time when we notice that a celebrity is hated by the public we have to ask a couple of more questions which you did and that is excellent. There is a "non" profit organization called ALEC. This organization has been established in 1973 to help exploitational corporations pave their way in the senate, to write and propose bills like AETA and to sneak them into the senate at night when most Senators are too tired to read the fine print of those bills. They have market psychologists who help them to manipulate the public in order to make them vote for politicians who are going to sign such bills and be part of the corruption. And: Those market psychologists manipulate the public to hate any public person who stands in the way of the corporate agenda. Dr. Peter Singer certainly stands in their ways of corruption. So this leaves not much doubt that they have spread their slander against him widely.
Maybe because he thinks some humans ain't human.
I'm confused by all this babble. So we should forgo the garage experience...working for ourselves with a profit motive...or forgo buying our first gas station... and go straight to charitable giving like Bill and Warren. Presumably altruism gave them their start and rewarded their hard work..not a capitalist system or a profit motive.
So people like Pete think our State... Western Civ states, bear all the responsibility of equalizing the world starting position and we, Western Civ people, shoulder the blame and guilt of a world wide lack of mosquito nets because we drink Lattes. Somehow African and Asian states and their governments have no responsibility in any of this. Thank ? For the Altruistic Western Civilization Entrepreneurial Individual and their Success... now I will get the courts and the state to enforce my altruistic visions. You peolle should feel the guilt and shame associated with drinking your Lattes vs sending money to Sally Struthers and oh, BTW, Downs Syndrome babies have no value and we should kill them before the bond becomes too much with their parents.
I agree, I have no idea how anyone could not like this guy.
Angelina Li He said some very controversial things. But honestly most people are not brilliant minds. Remember that brilliant people discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, simple minds only discuss people and participate in nitpicking the person rather than debating his main philosophy.
Valentinia Kladimironova "Brilliant people discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, [etc.]..." -- I don't think this is true. All minds discuss ideas, events, and persons -- brilliant, average, or otherwise. I think it's human reflex to do that. The real difference between an "idiot" and a "genius" is simply the depth and breadth of the discussion of ideas, events, and persons -- it's entirely relative to cultural norms.
PS: I'm not even part of the rest of this conversation -- I just really didn't like the feeling of leaving that assertion standing.
+Brent Burton I actually like his ideas for some specific subjects, but others like the down's are really creepy...
I love the fact that there are hundreds of languages for options as subtitles
its very common in ted talks
If you donate to the Against Malaria Foundation (as I have, based on Giving What We Can's recommendation), then they email you when the nets you've paid for are distributed :) They track this carefully and publicly post photos of them being distributed.
Professor Dr. Peter Singer is the leading ethical philosopher of our century. He introduces humanity to what true love means. Most people do not understand the meaning of true love. Altruism is true love. Altruism is giving true love to all sentient beings equally.
"Professor Dr. Peter Singer is the leading ethical philosopher of our century."
Err, Ayn Rand is. Check out what Ayn Rand has to say about the evil nature of altruism as well as the Virtue of Selfishness.
***** How is altruism "evil"?
Altruism is evil because it is an ethic of sacrifice. Sacrifice is incompatible with the requirements of life. Life survives by the achievement of values, not the sacrifice of values. Only egoism/selfishness is compatible with life, since every living thing must act in it's self interest to survive. UA-cam search: Ayn Rand Altruism for a more detailed explanation.
***** I strongly disagree with you. Altruism is pure love. Nothing else. Some people have it and some people don't have it. And the ones who don't have it can not possibly imagine how it feels like to truly love.
Love?! Giving?! sounds like commie talk to me.
I absolutely agree with Singers views here, we should definitely try and be come altruistic. But surely it shouldn't be a burden on the individual to stop poverty. Wouldn't it be more effective to address the oppressive systems that mean that some people live in squalor whilst others lick gold off their fingers? The one percent hoards all their wealth exploiting the poor, we shouldn't rely on their altruism to make the biggest difference in the world.
I think your donation as a less rich person can be in the form of pressuring more powerful people and organisations. Another untouched subject in that field is boycotting which is a reverse way of donating, much more systems oriented and not based on a personal responsability but rather a systematic improvement.
I think this is a really interesting viewpoint and I see it as the balance between morality and pragmatism and it is particularly difficult as it is dealing with hypotheticals. The suggestion that a future act, or an act on behalf of yourself would be a more effective way of dealing with this issue is true, and would be a far more pragmatic way of dealing with the issue. But does that hypothetical pragmatic deed remove you of the moral burden of acting given the current, real world situation. Ideally it should be a burden on every single individual to address the oppressive systems that lead to poverty, and if it was we would see it reflected in the systems we create.
You got it wrong, you shouldn't be burdened in Singer's idea effective altruism. Unburden yourself first and then whatever excess you attain later goes to worthwhile charitable causes. That's the idea. If it burdens you then you should only be thinking about yourself.
If you're "burdened" by not having excess material, resources or money, then you're bad by his definition.
Well, doesn’t look like you’ll be donating with this mindset. Lol
Yeah okay but he’s bullshitting until he give’s everything he has to those “poor”!!
When TEDtalkers use and reference great websites, like this, it would be amazing if they were in the video description! I'd love to see TED use it to communicate and offer more.
Amazing talk, this is a community I want to live in!
Peter Singer is an asset for the world.
+Eli Cohan Why do you say that?
I have already studied his work in a philosophy class at my university and I hold my opinion. Please explain why you think so if you wish to convince me otherwise.
EVEN THOU HE THINKS WOMEN SHOULD BE ABUSED AND KIDS SHOULD BE HARMED HOW DARE YOU COMPLIMENT HIM YOUR SICK ASWELL I AM DEPRESSED OVER SICKOS
You must be crazy
He is a liability to America. Because of him, "effective altruists" siphon money from USA to foreign countries.
One of my all time favorite philosophers.
I had never heard of Mr.Singer. Then I start watching this and hear his Australian accent. WOW.! Much love & humility from SYDNEY.
Very good way to collective enlightment and improvement of the well-being of the global society.
Great proyect, effective altruism is a beginning to great changes in the world. Hope we can learn to be more sensitive and smart making things
Through this lecture, I realized that if individual do ‘The Effective Charity’, it would be even much more meaningful participation. This lecture was the opportunity that when I do the charity, how to donate to help improve the social structure. I hope that this video is widespread and helps a lot of people.
Brilliant as always Singer, the analogy of a hedonic treadmill hit me the greatest.
I think we have to get over fear of being immodest when talking about our own giving. It is definitely possible to talk about this without boasting. If we were more open about what we gave, more people would be encouraged to also give themselves.
He's done such great work over his life, but still seems so humble about it. It's great he's being joined by so many people at The Life You Can Save!
Advocating for infanticide and killing the disabled is “great work” are you deranged or something?
That last line was powerful.. Well done.
People like this man speaking here, give me hope and peace and strength, and I thank God for giving us the resources and the intelligencefor dealing with lifes hardships and for life to have better days.
I want world peace
Oh! You didn't notice? He's an atheist. I thank God that he still has the opportunity to learn to believe in God. It's not the science I disagree with, but the arrogance that says you don't need God to make sense of the world. So, why is there anything to exist? (Don't say "gravity" since it only began after the big bang.)
Why? God said...
Science never asks, and can't answer, why.
@@lukasmakarios4998 it’s not arrogant to recognize that there is no evidence for god, it’s realistic.
Absolute FIRE. This is a Peter Singer W. This guy is 100% sincere and will always act on his theory.
"We are, quite literally, gambling with the future of our planet - for the sake of hamburgers."
Peter Singer
#goplantbased
If only it were so easy. I think that the first step would be promoting a less meat driven diet, and from there figuring out ways to deal with agricultural issues such as the overproduction of grain.
I think that, going all plant based comes with its own issues as it too puts a great demand on farmers. Lab grown meats too, are quite demanding so I'm not sure if they are a perfect solution until we can find ways to produce them without use of a huge deal of power and resources.
@@tongxammo dumb crap
@@maxwellsequation4887 Very thoughtful reply
Veganism is environmentally harmful
You dont seem to understand the point really. Its more like that you try and twist the Argument he made to your own world view.
A remarkable speech and video.
It makes all the difference. When in person the emotional effect and cost you recieve is greater therefore effecting your decision.
To me this was one of the most inspiring TED talks I've seen. Clearly spoken and a genuinely heartfelt message. I'm unsure how this could be controversial.
Hes controversial because he believes in infanticide and killing the disabled.
Probably because this man supports infanticide.
What a amazing human being! His comments on the Bill and Melinda foundation show a great lack of business understanding. Doesn't take away from his words though.
Very insightful, thank you.
I agree.
Altruism is like a skill or expertise. When someone starts, you say "wow, that's so great that you started doing that!", that you'll overlook that they're not good at it right away. But maybe they didn't put their focus in the right place, and you see them going around in circles for a while not getting any better. You step up and tell them how you feel, have a debate about it.
Altruism is like that. Wow, so proud you took the first step, but now let's refine and improve.
Very true! It's amazing that we have the opportunity to help people so much. And nice to know that others are really doing so, like at The Life You Can Save.
What an inspiring video! The analogy of ignoring the little girl is really powerful.
This guy advocates infanticide "for the greater good". Don't be fooled by this sociopath.
I'm so glad that he brought up the bottled water thing. I tried to talk a few friends out of spending $40 a month on bottled water during the summer, but they just wouldn't listen. It made me want to bash my head against a brick wall, especially because the tap water here actually tastes quite good.
I adore Peter Singer and what he has done. Great points he has made by Affective Altruism.
Isn't it awesome how he's stuck at encouraging people to help each other more, given what a while ago he wrote Famine, Affluence and Morality? It's great that The Life You Can Save has really taken off as an organisation and not just a book now!
Hello Dear
How are you doing today?
Peter Singer brings to light an interesting movement, I wish more people wanted to help each other in this way!
Yea, that movement inspired FTX, too.
This guy advocates infanticide "for the greater good". Don't be fooled by this sociopath.
This was excellent!
Thank your sir for so much of knowledge ...
Sem palavras. Simplesmente fantástico!.
Brilliant guy, brilliant talk.
Just when I have been feeling we are losing it as a species, I found this video and am full of hope. thank you Peter for all the great work you are doing.
I am moved and touched.
A good video to share with a friend!
It seems the people who disagree with Singer mainly either misinterpret him or just want to make things more complicated for the sake of it. His goal is simple: decrease suffering in sentient beings. How can you disagree with that?
Best way to end suffering, is to eliminate life completely before it has a chance to suffer.
Give "euthanasia" to those who are not allowed to prosper and limit (at all costs) the means for them to do so on their own ....That is what the concept of "effective altruism" translates to.
I find Singer so inspiring, especially in relation to his work on animal liberation. I like this idea too because it empowers the people to act rather than wait for the goverment to take action (which is happening in the vegan movement too). But like other people, I worry how effective most charities really are. If that website shows a full breakdown of the charities' spending and outcomes then that would probably convince me.
You think a man who thinks its ok to commit infanticide and to kill the disabled is “inspiring” you are sick in the head. He also thinks beastiality is ok and that rape is ok in some cases.
@@Arginne yes, he said its okay to kill disabled newborns “if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole.”
This guy advocates infanticide "for the greater good". Don't be fooled by this sociopath.
I have always helped and thought about others then myself and it has deteriorated my health vastly
Great talk!
He is trying to inspire people to action and he doesn't even lay down much guilt towards that end.
Effective Altruism is good because it saves lives and relieves people from horrible suffering. The fact that it makes some people (like me) feel better as well is a bonus.
Peter Singer's utilitarianism will lead to Ableism since his low form of ethic sees humans having the same value as animals. And that’s cynical and totally wrong.
I agree! Although sometimes it seems like the best way to change the current social order might be to give to charities that lobby governments (eg RESULTS) or in other ways try to alter / help the system (eg CITA farm workers). Charity evaluators like GiveWell and Giving What We Can try to consider and evaluate those kinds of organisations as well as more traditional charities.
He is brilliant
I gave 1.2 million to charity so far but I feel that much richer. Excellent video that puts things into perspective.
I have a lot of love to give and I certainly do so. I quite enjoy donating my time but unfortunately, I simply can't afford to donate to charities on a weekly or monthly basis. I think volunteering in your community and treating everyone you meet with a gracious attitude is far more meaningful.
You have inspired me thank you sir.
I still feel that you should help yourself first and then help the people around you, and then after that you help others in different locations.
Bang on !
i like singer's approach to maximizing utility and i appreciate the sentiment here. but i think something he needs to look more into is how imperialism and capitalism contribute to world poverty. when he talks about going into banking or finance to donate money, it would be quite ironic to dedicate a career to capitalism which contributes to worldwide oppression when you are trying to battle poverty
Hopefuly people with an altruist mindset might change the world of finance and banking from within ?
Although i just had 2 years worth of crypto experience and sam bankman fried (a major player in this game, a billionaire effective altruist), to me and many, is closer to an ironic super vilain than anything
How about how murdering children contributes to the industrialization of humanity and results in both colder and more violent societies?
Exactly my thought. It seems to be a "the ends justify the means" type argument, which never has sat well for me. Gandhi and MLK, who of course also strived to do the greatest good in the world possible, both believed that the means and ends have to be in alignment with each other.
Peter is amazing :)
Great talk.
Great video - I've made the pledge on the life you can save website
Wow, that's amazing! How did you decide what charities to give to?
What about ecosia?
Effective Altruism: "All this unchecked corporate capitalism at best and fraud at worst is going to be for the good of humanity bro, I promise after getting billions of dollars for myself under my name I will give it all back just trust me bro"
What a beautiful thing, and hes even fulfilling his goals by giving the ted talk because its persuading us to adopt the philosophy. What we consider a genius is wrong him and other people making that targeted effort are geniuses.
Exactly! I concur.
I’m here from my philosophy class
donate
A little concern that I have about effective altruism is that it encourages the use of foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates one that even if they do make a big difference in a lot of people's life they also pursue the goal of augmenting their influence which is something that can lead to neo colonialism and to make the poorer countries depend on the help of the richer ones. I appreciate the effort of Singer on spreading the value of equity but real social justice only comes when you have both freedom and equity.
Peter Singer doesn't recommend you donate to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Against Malaria would be a much better idea
Jim Rogers is a wealthy investor who spends an extraordinary amount of time travelling. He has been to more countries in the world than any other human being alive. A smart man. He goes and talks to local prostitutes because they have the pulse of what's going on because they get hired to service foreign dignitaries, etc. He thinks we should stop absolutely all foreign aid, because the vast majority of it goes in the dictators pockets, and whatever doesn't just ends up, barely keeping peoples heads above water, so they don't pull a revolution and overthrow the corrupt government. It's perpetuating the system unfortunately.
When he asked if they had the thought "I would help the injured child" I would not raise my hand. Not because of any belief that I *wouldn't* help them, but merely because I possess an intense fear of saying anything about my future with any sort of certainly. Just like the "would you jump off a bridge if everyone else did?" having the possible response of "why are they jumping off the bridge?"... any sort of hypothetical aspect of moral character means nothing compared to when it's happening with nobody looking. What are you in the dark? Would you risk losing something important in a physical or emotional way if it meant saving a life? What about risking your own life?
Nobody knows the answer to this question until they experience the question in reality.
amazing
I can't think of a more effective way to funnel all charity money to your own agenda than to make the claim that your charity is wiser than the others. This is a dangerous concept and will create a power imbalance and shortage for charities not on Mr singers agenda list.
Peter Singer doesn't own GiveWell or Animal Charity Evaluators. The effective altruism movement is much larger than one person and a lot of research has gone into figuring out what the best charities are.
Please explain to me how encouraging people to save children's lives is a disgusting thing.
SINGER THINGS ITS OK TO KIL DIABLED CHILDREN
because you are not solving the problem, you are worsening it. You allow corrupted governments to go out with it. It's like feeding homeless kittens, you do harm. You make these people dependant on you. If you wanna help provide them with tools to work
Какое прекрасное выступление, спасибо. Скоро мне доставят книгу Питера «Жизнь, которую вы можете спасти», очень жду
Altruism is not just about ' giving ' . It is also about not causing ' harm ' !
I like where he's coming from. However, I do not think that earning money by exploiting the poor (or working for a company that does so) in order to give a percentage of your income to the poor is radically ethical.
Scousecolonial Well, one has to weigh up the benefits and costs of doing so. It could be that your company only engages in ethically questionable practices to a very small degree, and that the money you give away to charity does far more good. Then again, ideally, there would be an incredibly high-paying career that one could go into which doesn't engage in any exploitative practices.
That is just one of many many logical lapses he talks about. Also, if you really wanna hurt the world's poor stop buying things. One dollar a day is better than zero dollars a day. It's a complex problem and his solution would only make things worse. It would mean the world's poorest would have no job at all, and there are cascading effect for retail sales back home as well. It would destroy both economies and everyone would suffer. Plus, people aren't dirt poor because they lack money. They are dirt poor because of corrupt governmental institutions, full stop. Those dirt poor nations are not helped if they never have to face a reckoning because rich Westerners keep coming in and keeping peoples heads just barely above water, just barely surviving.
"All live have equal value"
Do you believe a child rapist and murderer's life is of the same value as a person who helps society?
What does that even mean? Value is subjective, so there is no objective value to anything. I have a hard time imagining even a single person actually practicing this belief.
@@atirix9459 what? essential human rights are literally the basis of Western civilsation. almost all developed countries agree that even despicable people like child rapists have fundamental rights, simply because they are human. how can you say that almost no one lives by that standard?
@@kwahujakquai6726 they aren't of equal value to society, but they have the same untouchable basic human rights. Almost all civilised societies recognise this, which is why the US is one of the only Western countries that still have capital punishment
Dominik S That’s not what I said. I said that I have a hard time imagining anyone ascribing ”equal value” to everyone.
Very good content. Contagious altruism!
The Sisyphus analogy at the end of this video is spot on.
If my class are watching this, hi
Ali Abdaal brought me here
Incrível! Conheci ele pelo livro do Nigel Warbuton.
Yeah he obviously can't tailor the talk to everyone. I agree that some people will be drawn to causes that affect them personally and that's ok. He's right for me that knowing im helping more people makes me feel good. I think he made his point that there is stuff we can do, and if your goal is simply to help people these groups are a great guide.
Is there a company that distributes birth control to 3rd world countries.
I think that would be a way of eliminating potential suffering, while not adding to the problem of overpopulation. Just a thought.
I've had that idea for 20 years.
Yes, its an option. However, this should give some perspective:
Will saving poor children lead to overpopulation? - ua-cam.com/video/BkSO9pOVpRM/v-deo.html
Here's one recommended by thelifeyoucansave.org :
www.thelifeyoucansave.org/where-to-donate/population-services-international
Ending altruism would end a lot of suffering.
there is no overpopulation, that's ignorant of you
Loving science, atheism, education when young I thought I had won life; I solved my family's faults; victory. But it was only a first step.
Human beings hurt without connecting to others. Even when I don't like humanity, never mind love it, I know this to be true; helping others helps me.
Getting outside of your own mind and making the nagging in your conscience match your daily actions is hard, but it works in a way no Ted talk ever will. Apathy is waking death.
Volunteer. Give. Reach out.
Of course it matters whether or not I see the child lying in the street or if it is starving halfway around the world.
One presents an opportunity to immidiately and effectively help, the other is a trust-based attempt at help, done around at least 3 corners (from you, to the organisation, to the local help).
It is monstrous to walk past a bleeding child in the street. But, by that logic, it would be just as monstrous to keep a single penny for yourself, because you could've always helped more
You can clearly see that it was a standing ovation at the end..
I really like Singer - though I do think the distance between two people matters a whole lot. First of, value is created in relations. If you have no relations to something there is no inherit value to it. A car, a piece of clothing, another human being. And could one really demand that we care about all things equal, without any personal relations to them? If that would be the case a chinese car and a chinese child should be able to demand the same rights and respects. Which is nonsense.
So seeing the child in a pond, drowning, you're looking around, you gain a personal relationship with that child. And it is in that moment you have a relationship you gain a moral obligation. Just my 2 cents.
YOUR ANOTHER SICKO IF YOU LIKE SINGER ITS LIKE LIKING ROLPH HARRIS OR JIMMY SAVILLE HE IS SICK JUST LIKE THEM
You are right, I don´t know anything about Singer, and I´m glad to hear he is part of the animal rights movement. I just said I don´t think Bill Gates is an example in this issue at all. Everything else Singer says is remarkable, I would just exclude Gates name in his speech.
Insightful
A good way to know your money is doing good is to donate to charities which have independent people reviewing them, making sure they are in fact using the money in the way they say they are. The problems are so big it's hard to see the difference unless we look close. I am also pretty skeptical of most charities but Givewell and Giving What We Can take a pretty close look to make sure the donations are really going to help people.
God what a load of neoliberal capitalism. I hated him ever since I read "Animal Liberation" but now it's just cemented in my mind that he's a man deeply beset by guilt and hoping that he can buy his way out of those feelings.
This whole talk is painfully naïve about anything to do with economics or human welfare. He built his reputation on it back in the 70's through so he is digging his heels in with this nonsense that does not hold up to any form of rational scrutiny, if you explore any of these ideas individually. This is nonsense. It's good for bumper stickers and that's all.
@@jasondashney Right? Rich people already donate loads to charity to earn tax breaks, then those charities eat up 80% of those funds in management overhead, then 15% to staffing then 5% to the actual cause. Meanwhile nothing gets changed because systemic problems require legislation that would put those charities out of business.
And Effective Animal Activism :)
Thanks Joey! Sorry for the typo! I'd edit the post but UA-cam won't let me as far as I can see.
Joey Savoie, it is not that I disagree to what your are saying. But understand that various people go through different experiences in life and that is what makes up their mindset. I am a kind who can't believe a middleman (like a website). In India I have read news of beggars who have died wealthier than me and seen how beggars are created and utilized. It's a business over there. So, I have learned not to give anything to beggars.
We are, quite literally, gambling with the future of our planet - for the sake of hamburgers."
Peter Singer
Effective Altruism.... so what is InEffective Altruism then? Who decides what is Effective? I am pretty sure sending money to a third world country or donating for a cure to some decease is not. It is very short-sighted. The comparison between the kid that was driven over and our ability to contribute to help preventing kids to die from poverty related deceases, is so wrong that I cannot possibly find words for it, where to begin. This is quite disturbing stuff. With the even more disturbing conclusion: Make lots and lots of money, give some away, done - you are 'good'.
Very unbalanced if you asked me. The child been ran over was from China. China is a powerful country.
How can someone help? Can you help cultural behavior?
Third-world countries usually don't ask for money from powerful countries. Third-world countries ask big organizations to mediate and make sure that human rights are been respected. But, why and how can we become altruistic when even these organizations that we donate our money to, turn their backs to the same people thag ask for mediation.
Third-world countries want and need powerful countries away from their countries so they can finally develop. But Human Rights will only pop their heads in businesses like... El Salvador with the gang problems. So, the president "mistreating" the gangs that have been terrorizing citizens, is against basic "Human Rights". But when these people were claiming for Human Rights to mediate because they only lived in fear, where were they?
So. Why and when do we become altruistic? Can we trust it?
Can it be comparable? What would be effective then? What are we doing wrong?
I come from a Third-world country. I was already from the pleading side and asking the invaders to leave. Now I'm here donating because it's said that altruistic "is right"... where does it go? Where's the change?
This is a complex and subjective topic, beyond a simple TED talk in my opinion
Being altruistic is hardly giving up my life, I can live extremely comfortable while helping others. If I were to start a business, I might be able to support maybe 10 people who could probably have found other jobs. However making sure people in the developing world don't have disease could be extremely effective at giving them a shot at supporting themselves they might not have otherwise had. And while everyone's skills may not be equal, I do believe everyone is morally equals.
I personally like (14:52-15:28) realizing this parts brother and sister
I’m only here for a class and now they’re showing me dead kids
I understand that facing a bitter truth feels uncomfortable. Yet this talk is more about saving lives. It's a matter of letting go and moving on. What for are you in the class?
@John Google Google. Like "don't be evil". How would you approach this?
Wonder if he still thinks the same about Bill Gates in 23
*LIVING LEGEND*
Nice talk.
So one should use any means to become a billionaire (or another wealth point) to be able to be an effective altruist? Making millions in finance has enormous moral implications when thinking about how that money is made. Any denial of this is not taking into account the collective quality of life. Why ignore these questions when giving a talk like this?
No, the point is the harms that come from being an insignificant part of a system that is arguably bad are far less important that the thousands of dollars of good that could come from it. Also, just because somebody gets rich due to some sort of financial sector work doesn't mean it's morally harmful. Investments, in many cases, stimulate economic growth, help business owners, and as a result, help everyone operating within that economy.
An organization that does this kind of work (evaluates what kinds of careers lead to the best outcomes for the world) has recommended you don't advertise for tobacco companies in order to make money to donate, for instance, because if you are successful at your job you might move many people towards smoking and might not even "break even" with your donations. 80000hours.org/2015/08/what-are-the-10-most-harmful-jobs/
On the other hand, finance seems more ambiguous. Ben Todd wrote about it here: 80000hours.org/2013/07/show-me-the-harm/ His takeaway is that we can't just assert something causes harm and then walk away; we have to weigh harms and benefits against each other and see if one is significantly higher than the other. He tries to make the best case for finance as being a significantly harmful activity and STILL comes out with incredibly high benefits for the world through your donations - donations are just THAT GOOD. I highly recommend giving it a read.
Angelina Li Big fan of 80,000 hours, but shouldn't the "10 worst jobs" take into account opportunity cost for the business? It's not like the tobacco company isn't going to hire somebody, they're just going to hire somebody who doesn't donate money. So unless you're so uniquely good at your job that they won't be able to replace you, it seems like the harms will persist regardless of whether or not you as an individual take the job with them.
Hey Benjamin - I think 80K's thoughts about replaceability have gotten more complicated in the last year or two. See this for instance: 80000hours.org/2015/07/replaceability-isnt-as-important-as-you-might-think-or-weve-suggested/
+Angelina Li thanks! also, did you do apda at Wellesley? your name sounds super familiar and I think I just remembered why
This is totally wrong on so many levels. Of course the proximity of the case matters. It's all about having a practical perspective, or you'll just die yourself because there's so much pain and suffering and unfairness in the world. You can't take on all of it. Why would you? Then you'll just die yourself and be depressed all the time.
You have to be pragmatic. I'm not walking past a hurt child, but I'm not going to feel bad about ALL the hurt children in Africa, Asia and all over the planet. That's just crazy. Using billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet is another huge hit and miss. They could donate millions and they wouldn't even notice it. But if a normal person donate even 100 dollars it could mean they're not having their own need met that month.
You need to calibrate yourself to a practical normality. Or you could just be totally nihilistic all the time and say noting matters and I'm doing nothing because the sun will eventually become a red giant and burn up the whole solar system and everything is meaningless. Of course that'd be stupid, but that's my point. You need to calibrate yourself to a practical normality. Which basically means to not walk past a hurt child, but also not taking the responsibilty of all the suffering on this planet.
Wow! Wow!
And the same to you. Thanks.