[RD] Why do you still have two kidneys?

[Mouthwash]

No, it's an emergency thing.

 

[El_Machinae]

And you're missing the point here that charity in many cases makes things worse.

I understood that point. I didn't contest that point. I think it's true, and it's a reason to be careful.

I am stating that there are cheaper ways to save a life than to donate a kidney and that the kidney donation should be viewed in opportunity cost terms.

In the process of calling it 'corrupting', you went on to deny the idea that you can save statistical lives (even using quote marks, 'statistical lives') and then insisted that donating to the research that went on to save lives is not 'doing charity'.

So, I object to the last two concepts because I think they're dumb. (Um, people are literally not dying from smallpox any longer, for example).

And I object to the premise that we should focus on 'close' charity when there's cheaper distant charity to consider as well. I know that it's an instinct for some to consider lives that are within the community as more significant as those outside the community, and I don't agree with that instinct.

Your point that 'distant charity can make things worse, as well' is true. That's a reason to be careful, not to call it corrupting.

 

[Mouthwash]

In the process of calling it 'corrupting', you went on to deny the idea that you can save statistical lives (even using quote marks, 'statistical lives')

I didn't deny that, but think it is an incredibly unreliable means of saving lives, especially in regions you don't understand.

and then insisted that donating to the research that went on to save lives is not 'doing charity'.

So, I object to the last two concepts because I think they're dumb. (Um, people are literally not dying from smallpox any longer, for example).

Research does save lives (and can take them as well; see gas chambers, nuclear weapons, the internet). That doesn't make it charity.

Your point that 'distant charity can make things worse, as well' is true. That's a reason to be careful, not to call it corrupting.

I don't think being careful is enough. You have to be deeply familiar with the place you want to affect. Look at how many 'careful' scholars argued for installing a democratic regime in Iraq, or who claimed that the mid-aught economy was strong and healthy. Even specialists (well, the non-STEM variety at any rate) understand very little.

 

[El_Machinae]

Here's the problem I am having, I guess. I am trying to figure out the smallpox story if we try to rewrite it using your filter.

I'm glad you acknowledged the concept of statistical lives. It was driving me bonkers. The scare quote you used earlier was a great way to mock the concept. There are so many things we do that require thinking statistically: cleaning up nuclear radiation, preventing greenhouse gas excesses, vaccinations, anti-smoking campaigns, etc. You can never show that you saved an individual life, but you can show that you saved lives.

I acknowledge the concept that acting at distance is easier to screw up. But it's balanced by the fact that it's also potentially so much cheaper. Like it or not, we're about to beat polio. I think it's a good thing. Advocating that we stop, when we're just about to beat it, seems to be the wrong tack.

I think we're just arguing definitionally about donating to live-saving research. To me, "charity" is retasking some of your wealth in order to benefit others, and the "charity" is diminished by how much that retasking comes back to benefit you. It's a gradient. Donating a kidney to a stranger would be a type of charity. Donating to a friend would be as well, but kinda 'less so'.

 

[Mouthwash]

I think we're just arguing definitionally about donating to live-saving research. To me, "charity" is retasking some of your wealth in order to benefit others,

A definition only a utilitarian would think of.

 

[El_Machinae]

Rolly-eye, eh?
How are you thinking of the term?
How is donating to research not charity, in a way donating to [insert example here] would be?
You know, me figuring out that we're merely arguing about a definition is moving the conversation forward. Simple reciprocation is to clarify your position as well.

 

[Mouthwash]

Charity is giving money to less fortunate people. Not investing money into a project you think will help them. Seems like a commonsense definition to me, unless you're a person who sees outcomes instead of processes.

 

[El_Machinae]

I like how you assign motivations to people. It reminds me how much I disliked previous interactions.

But no, it's not a 'commonsense definition'. It's why we've been disagreeing for a page.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Charity is giving money to less fortunate people

Nah, usually it means giving money to well-heeled organizations and trusting them to do something good with it.

 

[Mouthwash]

I like how you assign motivations to people. It reminds me how much I disliked previous interactions.

I'm sorry if I've offended you here, but I spent quite a bit of time around utilitarians and was one myself for years. This is what I remember.

Nah, usually it means giving money to well-heeled organizations and trusting them to do something good with it.

Fair enough, but the money is still directly being handed out to less fortunate people or their governments (i.e. the money is meant to influence currently known factors to bring more resources to the needy). Supporting research to help others seems like a whole different ball game.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's nothing about utilitarianism. It's just how we spread words. "Giving up something to benefit someone else" is seen by me as 'charity'. You can restrict that definition to 'giving something directly (even if it's through a proxy)' and that's fine. And then I know how you use words. We'll wait to see what you call "giving something to benefit someone else" when it's not charity.

There's a spread:
a) You can give directly (funding a kidney donation)
b) You can give through a proxy (donating to the food bank)
c) You can give to benefit someone else (Ebola research)
d) You can give to benefit the group that includes you (Alzheimer's research)
e) You can selectively purchase within your in-group ('buying local')

Your use seems to wiggle somewhere between (b) and (c). I would include (c) and would know that (d) is contentious as 'charity', since it's also self-serving. In any sense where I could more efficiently help myself, it's charity.

I think of 'foregoing as a different aspect of the same idea. I don't know where in that list I'd put "giving up beef" in order to slow climate change. It's a conscientious act. But I don't know if it's a charitable act. Similar to what we discussed upthread, where you'd forsake goods purchased from far away in order to limit unknown side-effects from your spending. Or, even boycotts in general. It's not charity, but it's a type of self-sacrifice.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I haven't really followed this topic closely, but I've drifted in now and then...and I'm surprised it hasn't wandered into the evolutionary interpretation of the question.

Why do we have two kidneys? There doesn't seem to be any driving competitive advantage in the second kidney, so why hasn't it disappeared?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Even if there was absolutely no benefit to having a second kidney at all, there'd still have to be an actual disadvantage for there to be any pressure on it to disappear.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Even if there was absolutely no benefit to having a second kidney at all, there'd still have to be an actual disadvantage for there to be any pressure on it to disappear.

True. Extraneous diversion of nutrients I guess is pretty trivial.

What pushed the appendix into vestige status though?

 

[Hygro]

A definition only a utilitarian would think of.

"If I can't see it it doesn't exist"

 

[hobbsyoyo]

True. Extraneous diversion of nutrients I guess is pretty trivial.

What pushed the appendix into vestige status though?

We don't have a diet heavy in raw plants matter which requires a larger gut like you'd find in gorillas. It does serve as a repository of good bacteria still.

 

[El_Machinae]

We have two kidneys because we're bilateral. If there was selective pressure for less kidney action, the kidneys themselves would become smaller bilaterally

 

[The_J]

The overall size seems also to be somewhat fixed.
If a person is born with 3 kidneys (that happens apparently), the side with the 2 kidneys will have the total volume of a normal kidney.
Given that this pressure in this direction still exists, indicates that there is probably a reason for it.