{"items": [{"author": "Michelle Graham", "source_link": "https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/vZvNXa86k6wfBLTua#h3utn4FHY9PJLt6HN", "anchor": "ea-h3utn4FHY9PJLt6HN", "service": "ea", "text": "I agree with the overall argument here, which I perceive as fitting broadly into the category of arguments demonstrating that institutional action is more impactful (in the vast majority of situations) than individual action. However, without more information, I don't really see this conclusion as action guiding? That is, while obviously I shouldn't only do the individual action part, why can't I do both the individual action and the institutional part?
Some arguments in favor/against doing both I can see:For: there is a chance that the individual action does good, too. I'm someone who broadly doesn't care that much about my own inconvenience, so I find this very compelling. Or, if the action doesn't inconvenience me that much, there's no reason not to do it. For: sometimes (often?) calls for individual action serve as rallying cries that bring more people into a cause or make them more thoughtful, which then increases the likelihood that they participate in advocacy for the institutional change. For: I can use my choice to abstain from particular choices as a conversation point to start talking about the institutional change that would be valuable.Against: someone might think "my work here is done" when doing the individual action, and be less likely to participate in/advocate for the institutional changeAgainst: perhaps the action is very inconvenient/difficult, and trying to do it makes the actor feel bad, and therefore less likely to participate in/advocate for the institutional change.
Specifically, I'm curious about your framing here: "And pretty much all the time, instead of putting out calls for individuals to leave things for others it makes more sense for sellers to apply restrictions." This makes it sound like a given individual has a choice between putting out a call for individual actions or applying a restriction. But often it is not the same individual who has the power to ask their friends to do something, as has the power to make a supermarket institute a policy.
For myself, I can act on both fronts, because I can avoid using delivery, and call my grocery store chain to encourage them to restrict usage, and call my congressperson to ask them to pass a bill, without getting compassion fatigue or taking up too much of my time. Perhaps as a community, we should not have a tendency to discourage people from doing things that indicate they care about the possible effects of their actions on others, even if those things are weak altruistic trade-offs, as long as we are also encouraging people to/thinking about how to do things that are more effective.
So this was somewhat long-winded, but my question to you is basically: what do you see as the action-guiding result of your argument? Are you recommending that people not put out these calls for individual action because you see it as trading off with institutional action in some way? If so, could you clarify how you see that trade-off as occurring? If not, why not do both?", "timestamp": 1586712642}, {"author": "Jeff_Kaufman", "source_link": "https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/vZvNXa86k6wfBLTua#rstgwqhHubGDdif2Z", "anchor": "ea-rstgwqhHubGDdif2Z", "service": "ea", "text": "→ why can't I do both the individual action and the institutional part?
Both avoiding delivery and calling stores to encourage prioritization are ways of turning time into a better world. Yes, you can do your own shopping and call your own grocery store, but you have further options. Do you call other stores you go to less frequently and make similar encouragements? Do you call stores in other areas? Do you sign up as an Instacart shopper so there will be more delivery spots available? You write that you can act on both fronts, but if you start thinking of how you might do good with your time you'll quickly have so many potential things you can do that you have to prioritize. I'm arguing that you should prioritize based on how much good the action does relative to how much of a sacrifice it is to yourself.
The link at the end ( https://www.jefftk.com/p/effective-altruism-and-everyday-decisions ) gives more details, but overall I see these as very similar to encouragements to use cold water for showering instead of warm. Yes, there's some benefit to both, but when you compare the benefit to others (the delivery slot has a chance of going to someone else who needs it more than you do, a cold shower means less CO2 emitted) with the cost to yourself (you would prefer grocery delivery and warm showers), most people will have other altruistic options that do more good for less sacrifice.", "timestamp": 1586714071}, {"author": "Michelle Graham", "source_link": "https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/vZvNXa86k6wfBLTua#3h3XuxqJnrAiMaxdb", "anchor": "ea-3h3XuxqJnrAiMaxdb", "service": "ea", "text": "→ → I think in many cases it makes sense to use the prioritization you describe, but I have two concerns about it:
1) I think it's possible that with collective action problems, it's really easy to miscalculate the potential effects of your choice (and talking about your choice) has on the behavior of others, and therefore harder to estimate the true good the individual action produces (and the harm that explicitly discouraging mildly good but ineffective actions might cause).
2) I think it's likely that "how much of a sacrifice" something is varies a lot, and could depend how many other people are doing the thing and how your community views the thing. So it might be worthwhile to have a community that encourages doing inconvenient things, because that makes it easier to do good things that are inconvenient (ultimately making them less inconvenient).
Finally, I'm also not sure I agree that all things can be directly converted into "time spent" and then directly compared. Yes, if I have a specific amount of time I spend on social media, where I can either advocate for policy change or individual action, I should use that time for policy change. But some kinds of time use are inelastic or not-exchangable at a certain point, and one-off uses of mental time for deciding how to spend that inelastic time in a positive way doesn't seem wasteful to me. So I think it's better to be more nuanced than just saying "everything takes time and so everything is a trade-off" and instead evaluate which things genuinely trade off time with each other.", "timestamp": 1586723536}, {"author": "ChristianKl", "source_link": "https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ugaP3G27EJ84yzpnu#WMF73rWmCWFi9zi4p", "anchor": "lw-WMF73rWmCWFi9zi4p", "service": "lw", "text": "Don't buy masks, leave them for healthcare workers.
I think it's better to say "Don't buy masks through channels healthcare workers would use". I think it's the time to buy masks from China via Amazon.
There are plenty of Chinese vendors that are using factories that aren't FDA certified.
It's possible that the masks won't arrive or won't be up to the quality standards but I think they are likely better then home-made cloth masks. If the masks won't arrive because customs takes the masks to be used for other purposes Amazon has good policies to get you your money back. ", "timestamp": 1586721312}, {"author": "EKP", "source_link": "https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ugaP3G27EJ84yzpnu#5uRcutefFuEyaXvTd", "anchor": "lw-5uRcutefFuEyaXvTd", "service": "lw", "text": "Alright, I'll push back a little.
I think your numbers are off. My understanding (mostly from this NYT piece) is that WIC also renews the first of the month, at least in many areas. Many people were hit extra hard in March (less income, less support available from community orgs, less food from work or supplies from daycare). I would expect that on Apr 1-2, it could easily have been 1 in 25 shoppers who were WIC-eligible, or even much higher. And, making up numbers, I am going to say that for any given WIC-eligible SKU, maybe half of WIC participants and 10% of other shoppers would want that item. So of people who might buy that can of kidney beans, I could easily believe 1 in 5 or even 1 in 3 were WIC. WIC products are often *more expensive* than similar non-WIC options, because they have built-in, non-price-sensitive demand.
Yes, it would probably be better if we could set aside 3 hours on Apr 1 for WIC and EBT shopping only. It would come with tons of its own issues, but it is at least theoretically possible. But, I think individual actions those couple of days, in parts of the country where those were the relevant days, have more impact than you are guessing.
I do think that it can be a problem when the government or grocery stores try to determine who 'deserves' masks, or delivery slots, where there isn't a litmus test like WIC or EBT. The availability of these things have not been able to keep up with demand, and there is no way I can see to allocate them appropriately short of some application process that will take a lot of time to set up and probably still miss-allocate.
Should all masks go to medical workers? As a first priority, probably yes. But what about our friend whose kid came out of the NICU a month ago? Does that family not 'deserve' masks to try to keep their baby alive, too? What about immunocompromised and asthmatics who are performing essential jobs outside of healthcare? Or those that take care of senior citizens? At some point 'think twice, and then a third time, before ordering masks that might save someone else's life' starts to look like about as good as we can do at allocation.
Similarly, I would love it if there were a system where when doctors order a quarantine, they can put that person's name in a database for delivery priority. Same with high-risk individuals. As it is, many folks under medical quarantine are relying on friends and neighbors - often elderly friends and neighbors - to deliver groceries. Or in some cases they aren't eating well because they can't get groceries for weeks.
Until these shortages are over or these systems are set up to address them, I do think there is non-negligible marginal benefit to pushing a 'to each according to need' mentality. Many people are looking for small ways to help those hardest hit, and I think this falls into that category.
When accurate, of course. If someone posts encouraging action based on information that is not locally valid, there is no reason not to gently correct that!", "timestamp": 1586795280}]}