Take a photo of a barcode or cover
moistforchoice 's review for:
Altruismul eficient
by Peter Singer
I was pretty convinced of this book even before I cracked it open, because I've had an interesting conversation with someone working in the Singapore chapter, and I personally, also feel that we can make better decisions when it comes to altruism and charity. Giving a couple dollars to fundraisers on the streets - young volunteers rattling tin cans with their cause printed on it for 4 hour shifts is a common sight in Singapore - seems like too little money for the amount of resources mobilized. Online campaigns are more efficient but they operate the same way - advertisements and personal stories appealing to someone's sense of pity, guilt, or other emotions. So I was ready to learn how to distinguish between ineffective and effective causes as well as the most effective way to give back.
After reading this book though I am actually less convinced of effective altruism as a philosophy. Singer jumps right in to explain how to be an effective altruist without clarifying what effective altruism is. The few basic tenets of effective altruism seem to be dedicating your life to maximising as much resources - monetary, other resources, your own intelligence - as possible throughout your life, then giving away as much as you could to the right causes and the most effective organisations or systems working for that cause.
Effective altruism prioritises causes that maximises the most good one can do, namely global poverty alleviation, animal welfare, and other future, massive global risks such as climate change, natural disasters, and hostile AI. This list is consistent with its philosophy. Effective altruists do not believe that some lives are intrinsically more valuable than others. They also work on the tenet that saving a life and maximising its quality of life is what we should aim for. Therefore issues such as poverty and animal welfare would naturally be the first causes you think of.
I am wondering where the emphasis is on the phrase 'the most good you can do'. It sounds like 'the most good you can do', referring to a matter of counting the quantity of lives saved and quantity of the improvements to these lives that you, or rather, an effective altruist would rack up. But a few things here. First - these lives will go on to live in the same unchanged exploitative system that made them poor in the first place. Second - this system of quantitative giving assumes that everyone with resources to spare (ie. first world citizens) will quickly (or ever) warm up to the idea of effective altruism, thus maximising the rate at which there is effective giving in the world. I know the basic tenets of a movement doesn't change just because there are people who won't subscribe to it, but shouldn't a practical philosophy take into account utilising the variety of giving habits that people would quickly warm up to? Does effective altruism then really maximises the world's charity instead of a small group of sympathisers?
I am keen to know the answers to my questions above. I feel that it would benefit if Singer took some time to talk about the origin and history of effective altruism, its philosophy, and clarify some common questions or misgivings that he would surely have heard in the long time he was doing this work. Instead the book focused a lot of examples of how effective altruists managed to earn lots of money and give it away. Then again, to be effective, the movement really just need to appeal to a group of people who are driven, smart, willing to sacrifice their mental and physical health to work in fast-paced and cutthroat finance and business jobs, and in a position where they can give away money.
Or work in places where you can influence the growth of effective altruism, such as in charities, but only if you are in a huge position of influence that will outshine the benefit of your dollar. Which is fair, but again, it makes me wonder about the people in 'lesser' positions in the charity (such as myself, heh). According to effective altruism, should they quit to work in better paying jobs and give their money away then? The movement's answer would be something like maximise the use of a select amount of human resources in this charity, then yes, everyone else not contributing effectively should do that. Again this brings me to my question above. How can I help given my current position in life? I will not be able to bring myself to work in environments I know would stress me out and reduce my quality of life, possibly leading to underperformance and dropping out of the industry anyway.
The book does however list good ways to determine which charities are effective and which utilises your dollar well, of course within the list of causes proiritised by the movement. And it is a good shift of mindset away from giving based on emotion and moving towards giving effectively. I guess what I'll be doing next is to do more research into the movement and then making my decision on where I can give more.
After reading this book though I am actually less convinced of effective altruism as a philosophy. Singer jumps right in to explain how to be an effective altruist without clarifying what effective altruism is. The few basic tenets of effective altruism seem to be dedicating your life to maximising as much resources - monetary, other resources, your own intelligence - as possible throughout your life, then giving away as much as you could to the right causes and the most effective organisations or systems working for that cause.
Effective altruism prioritises causes that maximises the most good one can do, namely global poverty alleviation, animal welfare, and other future, massive global risks such as climate change, natural disasters, and hostile AI. This list is consistent with its philosophy. Effective altruists do not believe that some lives are intrinsically more valuable than others. They also work on the tenet that saving a life and maximising its quality of life is what we should aim for. Therefore issues such as poverty and animal welfare would naturally be the first causes you think of.
I am wondering where the emphasis is on the phrase 'the most good you can do'. It sounds like 'the most good you can do', referring to a matter of counting the quantity of lives saved and quantity of the improvements to these lives that you, or rather, an effective altruist would rack up. But a few things here. First - these lives will go on to live in the same unchanged exploitative system that made them poor in the first place. Second - this system of quantitative giving assumes that everyone with resources to spare (ie. first world citizens) will quickly (or ever) warm up to the idea of effective altruism, thus maximising the rate at which there is effective giving in the world. I know the basic tenets of a movement doesn't change just because there are people who won't subscribe to it, but shouldn't a practical philosophy take into account utilising the variety of giving habits that people would quickly warm up to? Does effective altruism then really maximises the world's charity instead of a small group of sympathisers?
I am keen to know the answers to my questions above. I feel that it would benefit if Singer took some time to talk about the origin and history of effective altruism, its philosophy, and clarify some common questions or misgivings that he would surely have heard in the long time he was doing this work. Instead the book focused a lot of examples of how effective altruists managed to earn lots of money and give it away. Then again, to be effective, the movement really just need to appeal to a group of people who are driven, smart, willing to sacrifice their mental and physical health to work in fast-paced and cutthroat finance and business jobs, and in a position where they can give away money.
Or work in places where you can influence the growth of effective altruism, such as in charities, but only if you are in a huge position of influence that will outshine the benefit of your dollar. Which is fair, but again, it makes me wonder about the people in 'lesser' positions in the charity (such as myself, heh). According to effective altruism, should they quit to work in better paying jobs and give their money away then? The movement's answer would be something like maximise the use of a select amount of human resources in this charity, then yes, everyone else not contributing effectively should do that. Again this brings me to my question above. How can I help given my current position in life? I will not be able to bring myself to work in environments I know would stress me out and reduce my quality of life, possibly leading to underperformance and dropping out of the industry anyway.
The book does however list good ways to determine which charities are effective and which utilises your dollar well, of course within the list of causes proiritised by the movement. And it is a good shift of mindset away from giving based on emotion and moving towards giving effectively. I guess what I'll be doing next is to do more research into the movement and then making my decision on where I can give more.