[RD] Why do you still have two kidneys?

[Akka]

There are some Iraqi citizens out there that would disagree with this statement about me.

The thing is though, I was a soldier then. In that role, it was expected of me to put myself in harm's way to protect strangers and I accepted that role. I'm not a soldier anymore though. I'm just a regular, everyday nobody and the only obligation an everyday nobody has is to take care of themselves and their families.

I'd say being a good citizen and as such taking care of society as a whole is an obligation of anyone living in a society. Again, that's the whole concept of society. As a soldier, I'm surprised you don't automatically default to this concept, when you risked your life to protect such society.

 

[El_Machinae]

It is not possible to reliably predict technological advancement (even less to predict how beneficial funding will be, at least for the casual observer), so your analogy kind of reinforces my point.

I'm not making an analogy. I'm saying that your thought experiment completely undermines your position. We cannot have the conversation about kidney donations if there wasn't the underlying charity creating the opportunity in the first place.

Kidney donation technology is not theoretical, it exists. You based your question on a real life dilemma that we hold. We wouldn't have this dilemma if there hadn't been people who ignored your advice

I see what you mean about foreign intervention, because it's so hard to do properly. Does this extend to any foreign intervention? Like, can I buy cotton from an African farmer? Or is it only when I'm giving money trying to help that I should be worried about downstream consequences? Should the same paralysis occur when I just want to buy something other than good feelings?

Also, there's a multiplier effect here. Envelope math says that a kidney donation should be valued at, let's pretend, $100,000. One life for $100,000. Shouldn't 20 lives at $5,000 each cause one to rethink the original kidney donation in lieu of the opportunity cost? The intervention that you are supposing is so damaging that it's worth 19 additional deaths to allow?

 

[El_Machinae]

There are some Iraqi citizens out there that would disagree with this statement about me.

You took payment to do a job. I never said that you couldn't be hired to help people. Of course you are. But, taxpayers paid for you to be there. And a subset of those taxpayers don't feel an obligation to help anybody but their family. I then gave my list on how to get those tax dollars . In other words, we just need to remember that there are people like you out there

 

[Mouthwash]

I'm not making an analogy. I'm saying that your thought experiment completely undermines your position. We cannot have the conversation about kidney donations if there wasn't the underlying charity creating the opportunity in the first place.

Kidney donation technology is not theoretical, it exists. You based your question on a real life dilemma that we hold. We wouldn't have this dilemma if there hadn't been people who ignored your advice

Being a researcher does not mean one adopts your philosophy.

I see what you mean about foreign intervention, because it's so hard to do properly. Does this extend to any foreign intervention? Like, can I buy cotton from an African farmer? Or is it only when I'm giving money trying to help that I should be worried about downstream consequences?

Yes, absolutely. Look at how much damage multinationals do in order to serve the needs of first-worlders. Any interaction with societies you don't understand is suspect, even tourism.

Also, there's a multiplier effect here. Envelope math says that a kidney donation should be valued at, let's pretend, $100,000. One life for $100,000. Shouldn't 20 lives at $5,000 each cause one to rethink the original kidney donation in lieu of the opportunity cost? The intervention that you are supposing is so damaging that it's worth 19 additional deaths to allow?

I don't think that it's possible to show one life can be saved for $5,000, and I'm not so foolish as to buy any 'statistical' argument to that end.

 

[El_Machinae]

We've reached an impasse. I'm trying to get you to acknowledge that kidney donation technology required foundational charity efforts for it to happen.
Also: I'll note that the main time I see people object to giving money to people far away was when it was suggested that 'charity' would be a good idea. Can you list the material goods you've foregone purchasing (that people in your income bracket normally have) because they were made using materials from far away?

The main reason why you don't think that lives can be saved cheaply is because ... you think vaccines don't work, or something? Or because you don't think malaria actually kills people? Or because "everyone eventually dies of something, regardless"?

Anyway, your argument is just a slippery slope of Commodore's. My kidney going to someone might cause harms. Ergo, despite the ability to save a life, I shouldn't do it. You like to keep your charity local. He likes to keep his even more local.

 

[Mouthwash]

We've reached an impasse. I'm trying to get you to acknowledge that kidney donation technology required foundational charity efforts for it to happen.

I acknowledge it, I just don't think it would have come any sooner had people in that era adopted an effective altruist strategy.

Also: I'll note that the main time I see people object to giving money to people far away was when it was suggested that 'charity' would be a good idea. Can you list the material goods you've foregone purchasing (that people in your income bracket normally have) because they were made using materials from far away?

Impossible to live in modern society without them, but hopefully in about twenty years I'll have cut out most.

The main reason why you don't think that lives can be saved cheaply is because ... you think vaccines don't work, or something?

I'd do it if I knew vaccines were being applied to people who would otherwise die, proportionate to my contribution. That feels like a long shot.

 

[El_Machinae]

That $5,000 per life saved is including the bureaucratic mess that we don't like. The alternative to that $5,000 donation is to let someone die of a preventable disease

I acknowledge it, I just don't think it would have come any sooner had people in that era adopted an effective altruist strategy.

That's not my point. My point was that without thinking in terms of statistical lives or of donating to organizations to get something done, kidney transplant technology would not be available to run your thought experiment

 

[Mouthwash]

That $5,000 per life saved is including the bureaucratic mess that we don't like. The alternative to that $5,000 donation is to let someone die of a preventable disease

Prove it.

That's not my point. My point was that without thinking in terms of statistical lives or of donating to organizations to get something done, kidney transplant technology would not be available to run your thought experiment

Medicine advances. I'm afraid I don't see how it is based upon 'statistical lives' or how regular people should be expected to predict which inventions will bear fruit.

 

[El_Machinae]

Prove it.

Okay.

Do you think that vaccines save lives? Do you think that you need to vaccinate X number of kids in order to prevent Y deaths? Do you think that these organizations successfully vaccinate children?

Like, are you skeptical that organizations have budgets and actually deliver a product?

Are you quibbling over the dollar amount I gave? Like, if we prevented one malaria death per $50k spent, would that change anything? Would you still be insisting that losing a kidney was a superior alternative?

Medicine advances. I'm afraid I don't see how it is based upon 'statistical lives' or how regular people should be expected to predict which inventions will bear fruit.

Medicine doesn't just 'advance'. It advances through a variety of inputs. One of those inputs was long-term thinking by people who said "we should spend money on kidney donation research". We literally couldn't be in the position of having a discussion about whether we've an onus to donate a kidney but for the people who first donated money.

20th Century Mouthwash then said "don't spend money on 'probabilities' or by 'giving money to organizations with mandates'". So, the underlying research didn't happen.
Your thought experiment requires that people not have done what you're suggesting be done.

Impossible to live in modern society without them, but hopefully in about twenty years I'll have cut out most.

Then we're back to my original observation. Usually people who poo-pooh the idea of effective altrusism are people who'd prefer to spend the money on themselves. But I want to point out how many options you have.
- you can chastise family and friends for taking vacations
- you can chastise family and friends for getting ZTE or Samsung phones
- you can chastise family and friends who have saltwater aquariums
- you can chastise family and friends who buy clothes made in Bangladesh

 

[Mouthwash]

Okay.

Do you think that vaccines save lives? Do you think that you need to vaccinate X number of kids in order to prevent Y deaths? Do you think that these organizations successfully vaccinate children?

Yes, yes, and not necessarily.

Like, are you skeptical that organizations have budgets and actually deliver a product?

I'm a bit fuzzy over the details. Businesses you can at least trust to some small degree because they have to turn a profit, and must retain basic functionality.

Are you quibbling over the dollar amount I gave? Like, if we prevented one malaria death per $50k spent, would that change anything? Would you still be insisting that losing a kidney was a superior alternative?

I would spend $50k if I was actually in a position to see a life being saved.

Medicine doesn't just 'advance'. It advances through a variety of inputs. One of those inputs was long-term thinking by people who said "we should spend money on kidney donation research". We literally couldn't be in the position of having a discussion about whether we've an onus to donate a kidney but for the people who first donated money.

20th Century Mouthwash then said "don't spend money on 'probabilities' or by 'giving money to organizations with mandates'". So, the underlying research didn't happen.
Your thought experiment requires that people not have done what you're suggesting be done.

Throwing money into a complicated situation that you don't understand is different than people who understand at least some science funding research in an area they deem worthy. It's worth noting that laymen like us are on very poor epistemic footing when it comes to future technologies.

Then we're back to my original observation. Usually people who poo-pooh the idea of effective altrusism are people who'd prefer to spend the money on themselves. But I want to point out how many options you have.
- you can chastise family and friends for taking vacations
- you can chastise family and friends for getting ZTE or Samsung phones
- you can chastise family and friends who have saltwater aquariums
- you can chastise family and friends who buy clothes made in Bangladesh

I don't understand what you're arguing.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm a bit fuzzy over the details. Businesses you can at least trust to some small degree because they have to turn a profit, and must retain basic functionality.

Join the Lions. Get your hands dirty. See if you believe reducing preventable blindness is possible, and that you can be useful. From here, it looks cheaper than 5k per pair of appropriate prescription glasses to people who can't afford them, so easier than saving lives.

 

[El_Machinae]

So, not only are you skeptical that you can prevent one statistical death from malaria for about 5 grand, but that these organizations aren't even saving 1 statistical life for every $50,000 they receive?

Is the idea here that people are secretly dying of smallpox, and we just don't know?

 

[El_Machinae]

Throwing money into a complicated situation that you don't understand is different than people who understand at least some science funding research in an area they deem worthy. It's worth noting that laymen like us are on very poor epistemic footing when it comes to future technologies.

The people who funded the research were not experts. They just trusted the experts.

I don't understand what you're arguing.

These are all areas where people are putting money into cultures that they don't understand, when there are alternatives available. Instead of going after people engaging in charity efforts, you should be going after people who're spending similar amounts of money, but on themselves.

 

[Mouthwash]

The people who funded the research were not experts. They just trusted the experts.

Look, we could argue about this all week, but funding research is simply not the same thing as doing charity.

These are all areas where people are putting money into cultures that they don't understand, when there are alternatives available. Instead of going after people engaging in charity efforts, you should be going after people who're spending similar amounts of money, but on themselves.

Actually, it's not so easy to break away from the modern world. It requires a great deal of time and energy. And you're missing the point here that charity in many cases makes things worse.

 

[abradley]

I'll tell my wife to sign me up for one of those 'donate' everything if possible in Thailand.

 

[Farm Boy]

Actually, it's not so easy to break away from the modern world. It requires a great deal of time and energy. And you're missing the point here that charity in many cases makes things worse.

That's a wilting daisy of an excuse.

I accept depression. I accept incapacity or inability. I accept being too selfish or too lazy to see or to care. I'm often enough any or all of those things at once, but this is quote is none of those. So don't break clean of the modern world. If you see need in the world, I promise you if you join something like the Lions you will find needs that can be helped far closer than the global. It won't be a miracle and it won't save the world, but you'll do something. I promise you a young man that asks will find a sponsor in the International Lions. You aren't getting younger, you know.

 

[Mouthwash]

Oh, there's plenty to do in my hometown. My mom is part of an emergency volunteer task force run by the mayor and I might be joining up soon. We're far from an atomized American suburb here.

 

[Farm Boy]

Sounds cool. What's it do, if you don't mind my asking? Fine if you don't want to get into it, I just find that interesting.

I bring up Lionism mostly because I know more about it, and find my time in it to generally rewarding and it seems generally useful. Most of the work is done locally, but a significant portion of the work is in simple money/dues gathering glasses gathering/etc from places and instances where there is extra to fund regional, national, and international efforts where it seems useful. I suppose I can't jet around and check on every project they say gets done overseas, but the regional work seems to get done. The sight dogs people come by regional meetings and you can find some of the lower income people that wind up with them at sponsored events, so I think there is a reasonable chance that they're real and we've provided the support we think we've provided.

 

[Mouthwash]

Sounds cool. What's it do, if you don't mind my asking? Fine if you don't want to get into it, I just find that interesting.

Treats victims of shock and injuries from rockets (like shrapnel).

 

[Farm Boy]

Seems like necessary work, sort of like volunteer EMTs or their followup? We still fire the whistle every noon as a test, gets used less in the cell phone era but it's the tornado siren and if firefighters/EMTs(they're the same volunteers) aren't showing up to the barn they blast it until people do. The other departments are far enough away that it is potentially fatal if the first ambulance to the wreck was from two towns over. Response times vary depending on the current crowd, so dedicated people can make a huge local difference.

This that sort of thing, or more like long term treatment/rehabilitation?