{"items": [{"author": "Phillip", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/626976891162?comment_id=626978517902", "anchor": "fb-626978517902", "service": "fb", "text": "If every American gave 1% of their income to effective charity each year that wouldn't be sacrifice, but it would be better than I see on most tax returns. The problem with the article is that there is one scrap of value in the author's writing that people are comfortable with giving less than they can. From which he takes off in a stupid and unsustainable direction which allows him to wag his finger and moralize. It doesn't justify the silly suggestion that unless it hurts you, you aren't good, which in any event is not likely to lead to large improvements in charitable giving. To paraphrase Bill Clinton: It's the results, stupid./end rant", "timestamp": "1378320439"}, {"author": "Phillip", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/626976891162?comment_id=626978622692", "anchor": "fb-626978622692", "service": "fb", "text": "To be clear the author Jeff quoted, not Jeff.", "timestamp": "1378320508"}, {"author": "David German", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111229345142780712481", "anchor": "gp-1378340733893", "service": "gp", "text": "I'm not confident I understand Colvin's point, but I'm getting a different emphasis from the article than you did. \u00a0She complains that Singer didn't address \"the causes of global poverty or of how we might go about tackling them\". \u00a0She accuses the Effective Altruism \"cult\" of disregarding cures to global poverty in favor of treating symptoms, because those cures would jeopardize their comfortable Western lives. \u00a0Self-sacrifice isn't a virtue in and of itself, but it's necessary to make a real difference.\n
\n
\nI am skeptical that this is true. \u00a0Even if it is true, I think the attack on the character of the EA movement is unwarranted. \u00a0If there is actually a course of action that would \nend global poverty\n via sufficient sacrifice on the part of Western philanthropists, every self-identifying Effective Altruist I know would be interested in pursuing it. \u00a0So, my question for the author is: what's the plan? \u00a0Instead of earning lots of money to save children from malaria, what should we do to end global poverty?", "timestamp": 1378340733}, {"author": "Brad", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/116032343632043704302", "anchor": "gp-1378380407730", "service": "gp", "text": "Colvin clearly misunderstands the meaning of \"altruism,\" which is not at all about \"trying to be nicer to the people we find most irritating.\" That's just good manners, not altruism.\n
\n
\nIn evolutionary biology, altruism does generally involve sacrifice: an animal behaves altruistically when it puts its own reproductive fitness at risk in order to help another (usually related) individual. \"Reproductive fitness\" refers to fitness in the Darwinian sense: it's a measure of the number of surviving offspring. The more surviving offspring you leave behind, the more pervasive your genes (and the traits produced by those genes, including behaviors) become in the population. It's was a big puzzle to figure out how altruism could have evolved, until the concept of kin selection came along: related individuals share many of their genes, so a behavior can be perpetuated if an altruistic individual helps a related individual. The altruist's reproductive fitness is reduced at the expense of the individual she or he helped, but the trait for altruism is passed on by the \"helpee.\"\n
\n
\nI do think altruism in humans also implies some sacrifice, but it's a sacrifice measured in opportunity. In the case of Jeff and Julia, they are sacrificing the opportunity to live at a considerably higher standard of living than they actually do. Instead of giving away all that money, they could be buying a big house, a nice car, expensive vacations, custom-made musical instruments, or whatever. Even if they don't see foregoing these things as \"sacrifices\" because they aren't interested in living like that, it could still be viewed as a form of sacrifice because it represents opportunities foregone. It's not just a \"salary sacrifce\" but rather a sacrifice of all the other things that could have been done with the salary that was sacrificed.", "timestamp": 1378380407}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1378403553955", "service": "gp", "text": "Also: Besides living on less income (which may or may not be a major lifestyle change, depending on the amounts involved) isn't the only lifestyle change (or \"sacrifice\", although not never sacrifice for its own sake!) popular among \"effective altruists\".\n
\n
\nFor example (and this claim is just anecdotal but I think it's true), the rate of veganism is much higher in this group than the population at large.\u00a0", "timestamp": 1378403553}, {"author": "Brad", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/116032343632043704302", "anchor": "gp-1378405449401", "service": "gp", "text": "I wouldn't equate lifestyle changes with sacrifice though. And I think it's important to note that altruism isn't \"about\" sacrifice, it's just that it may involve sacrifice. Can you have altruism without sacrifice? Certainly. But as the scale of altruism increases, the level of sacrifice probably increases as well. Bill Gates could probably give away 80% of his wealth without feeling that he's making a sacrifice. But if he gave away 95% (which would still give him a very comfortable life), he might start feeling the pinch in terms of personal opportunity costs.\n
\n
\nSpeaking personally, I'm not attracted to things like a bigger house or a newer car so donating money instead of using it to buy those things does not feel like a sacrifice to me. But there are certainly other things I could do with the money I donate, some of which do appeal to my values or give me pleasure, or indeed would improve my own life in some tangible way. I think one could argue that I'm making a sacrifice even if I don't personally have a perception of sacrifice, because those opportunities are lost. You have to weigh those lost opportunities against the benefits you derive from donating.", "timestamp": 1378405449}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1378405826670", "service": "gp", "text": "Right, yeah. Altruism is about doing good. Effective altruism is about maximizing the good done (at a for a particular cost to yourself). Holding cost to self fixed, effective altruism is much more altruistic than ineffective altruism. I think \n@Jeff Kaufman\n\u00a0(frequently) makes this point nicely.", "timestamp": 1378405826}]}