r/SneerClub archives
newest
bestest
longest
Donating to religious groups, youth sports, “the arts”, etc is harmful, because of the opportunity cost of omitting the same donation to more effective charities. Each dollar to local youth soccer is exactly one dollar’s worth of malaria net protection or waterborne parasite protection denied. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24606622)
43

It would quite literally be better to put that money into economic purchases rather than donations instead of wasting it on subjectively preferred charities.

Youth sport bad. Buying video games good.

this mf said "economic purchases"
The money spent on concert tickets and team membership fees never circulates in the economy ever again
[deleted]
In two words? Flows upwards. As in upwards rather than back down again. I don’t the specifics on sports teams but I know the live music industry and it may well be similar. Increasingly, as revenues have slipped ever further down in recording sales, the people at the top of the industry have been desperately trying to secure monopoly power, and monopsony power of labour (i.e. driving down wages and driving up prices). Moreover small venues which generally circulate money in local communities and out into the wider ecosystem have been decimated by this and other changes in culture, which means fewer venues and fewer sources of circulation, as well as fewer customers and fewer artists willing to take a punt on even going semi-pro. And ever rising prices for even live music encourage more people to stay at home at least in major cities, while the larger monopolies - who are still doing badly on their own - hoover up what’s available and generally don’t reinvest it anything other than running on fumes.
I'm joking, it obviously does. It's implied by the comment beth quotes that it doesn't, though, which was the sneer.
anyone want to give me an example of non-economic purchases?

I can’t think of any utility-loss consequences if the primary outlets for youth exercise and socialization simply ceased to exist across the country.

This ties surprisingly well to a previous point made by them about the drug war.

And, of course, the most effective charity is building a computer god that can digitise the universe and simulate everything being OK. Hence, doing anything other than that is absolute evil.

you, a simpleton: utility monsters seem like a problem for utilitarianism me, a high-decoupling rationalist: *invents a utility monster and starts offering it blood sacrifices*
Me an accellerationalist who knows the acausal utility monster is reading this: blood sacrifices? I LOVE blood sacrifices.
Every dollar donated to little league is a dollar not spent on bringing about the Reign of the Basilisk
*ahem* the RationalWiki fundraiser is on now, and INCREASING EXISTENTIAL RISK!!

[deleted]

My hypothesis is that they can't conceptually figure out how any other system would be implemented in software, so rather than trying to figure out this hard problem they do the comparatively easier move which is to contort their thinking into convincing themselves that utilitarianism is correct.
Good mix imo. MacAskill’s book on moral uncertainty is *the* hip book atm
At least personally I've heard of them and rejected them, or at least those not based on some form of consequentialism. The idea that the action that has the worse outcome could be more moral seems like a form of insanity to me.
[deleted]
I feel like you should at least consider the possibility that someone might find out, and multiply how bad it would be if someone did by that possibility.
[deleted]
I would say that practically speaking you can't be absolutely certain of something. Even if it's only a tiny chance, you have to multiply how bad it would be if the thing did happen against that. You can't just gloss over that because it's fundamental to ethics. If there were somehow an absolute certainty it could never come to light... well, I'm not sure, it feels wrong somehow but I don't want to assume my moral intuitions are always right. Then again, I'm not entirely sure how to justify the idea that anything is inherently right or wrong in the first place.
[deleted]
Again, I'm not entirely sure how to justify anything being inherently right or wrong in the first place.

On the other hand donating to the local Rationalist party fund is the most moral and correct choise.

If I remember right Scott Alexander actually suggested you put 50% of your donations towards that.

Isn’t that just a church tithe?
Except the god AI is clearly objectively real. Blood for our theoretical robotic overlord! Everyone must do their part!
Do you have a link for that?
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/22/a-maximally-lazy-guide-to-giving-to-charity-in-2019/ He says the "maximally lazy" answer is to split equally between the four EA funds. If you look into "Long-Term Future" and "Effective Altruism Meta/Community" they both basically just give money to rationalists.
who else is going to spend $25,000 printing and distributing harry potter fanfic, *huh*

It’s almost like we need some organization to coordinate charitable giving by collecting money (a “tax”) from the charitable givers (the “tax payers”) and then distributing that money according to the collective desires of the “tax payers” or their representatives. We can call it a democracy and its the best we can do until the Singularity.

But you don’t understand. Tax money ends up going to stupid things like community sports whereas the real gains would come from giving it to the MIRI.
why doesn't eliezer yudkowsky just add an ~~idiot~~ tax to lesswrong meetups?
Because taxation is evil and it only counts if it is voluntary. (Dont mention the landlords).

All this hard thinking and not a brain cell spent on the idea that on a macro level money is a social construct. (Aka you as an individual consumer cant ever do as much good as say France or the IMF going ‘hey African nations, those debts we made you have for being colonized, they don’t exist anymore’.

And this way you don’t have to feel guilt for buying yourself a steam game and not somebody a malaria net.

This is all just bikeshedding

E: Also, fyi, to fight malaria you need 4 things, meds, stopping the nearby bugs from breeding by cleaning up their local breeding grounds, insecticides, and nets, the monofocus on just netting just isnt enough. (according to an epidemiologist). (well five actually, local support is the most important one). Why am I mentioning this? This goes to show that going ’normal charities are inefficient, we will stop malaria by creating our own charity with less waste (and hookers and blackjack) and just send out nets, is a bad idea).

Do not donate to religious groups ‘supporting God’s cause’, support us instead in creating God(AI).