{"items": [{"author": "Kiran", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/304514019585130?comment_id=304670262902839", "anchor": "fb-304670262902839", "service": "fb", "text": "Of course every dead child is a tiny bit less population pressure on an already overpopulated planet (never mind the follow-on effects when they don't have children of their own.)", "timestamp": "1326151518"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/304514019585130?comment_id=304682276234971", "anchor": "fb-304682276234971", "service": "fb", "text": "@Kiran: You're arguing that keeping children from dying now is not actually very valuable, possibly negative Consider the same idea but with a charity that's working towards making the world better in whatever way you thinks the most sense. The main idea, that by spending money on yourself you are paying a cost in reduced progress of whatever world-improving efforts you most value, still stands.", "timestamp": "1326153239"}, {"author": "Kiran", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/304514019585130?comment_id=304684939568038", "anchor": "fb-304684939568038", "service": "fb", "text": "I'm arguing that if you believe population is a problem, which I happen to, keeping people of any age alive is a negative. I also believe that on the scales on which we keep people alive (like famine relief) there's no real impact on the problem. In other words, we're likely doomed, unless a plague comes along to solve our problem for us.

I don't know any charity that's focusing on reducing the population of the planet--not stabilizing its growth rate, but stabilizing it at the current numbers or reducing it. Until that problem is solved, everything else is spitting in the wind.", "timestamp": "1326153662"}, {"author": "Jonah", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/304514019585130?comment_id=304704219566110", "anchor": "fb-304704219566110", "service": "fb", "text": "Kiran,", "timestamp": "1326156534"}, {"author": "Jonah", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/304514019585130?comment_id=304710302898835", "anchor": "fb-304710302898835", "service": "fb", "text": "1. I currently don't know of any reasons that I find compelling to think that population growth is a serious problem on the level of making us \"likely doomed\". Why do you we're likely doomed due to population growth?

2. The fact that there are much bigger problems than the ones that one can solve is not good a good reason for declining to help where one can. While the impact of alleviating a family's suffering is minor relatively speaking it still makes a big difference to the family.

3. GiveWell addresses the possibility of saving lives doing more harm than good on account of contributing to population growth in their research FAQ http://www.givewell.org/about/FAQ/research... :

Supporting Jeff's point above they note that \"Donors who are more concerned about this issue than we are may wish to support our #2 charity, the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative (SCI), which treats parasitic infections that can be debilitating but are very rarely fatal.\"", "timestamp": "1326157408"}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1326162351599", "service": "gp", "text": "I have another problem with this, though it may be an extension of the bit about being miserable. I just think this is an extraordinarily negative way to look at your own utility. It's true that from a technical standpoint, you could outline all of your decisions and purchases in terms of this singular opportunity cost. But the implication of doing so strikes me as extraordinarily unfair (to yourself). It's not just that it will make you miserable, it's that it implies that you are personally responsible for solving the world's problems, and that anything you spend your time, effort, or money on other then that is practically a crime. Feeling a sense of responsibility for things like charitable giving (and doing something about it) is great, but there's nothing wrong with living your own life. The suggested weight of moral obligation under this scheme is borderline absurd.", "timestamp": 1326162351}, {"author": "George", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/304514019585130?comment_id=304781196225079", "anchor": "fb-304781196225079", "service": "fb", "text": "The real problem is it defeats an important purpose of money. If I value chickens, I could measure all prices in how many chickens they are, or if I value cars, I could measure money in how many cars something is. Different people value things in different ways and money is partly a way for them to communicate valuations to each other.", "timestamp": "1326167509"}, {"author": "David German", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111229345142780712481", "anchor": "gp-1326168256687", "service": "gp", "text": "So, if saving a child's life became more difficult, deflation would ensue?", "timestamp": 1326168256}, {"author": "Jeremy", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/304514019585130?comment_id=304801826223016", "anchor": "fb-304801826223016", "service": "fb", "text": "Those of us who are concerned about overpopulation may still see a value in measuring money in dead children, but with the obvious alternate meaning: the cost of killing an additional child. (I suspect, assuming the most efficient methods available are used, that the cost could be brought much lower than $2000.) The beauty of this alternate definition is that it is not nearly as depressing to think about as the original definition, as the thought of an additional child being alive isn't particularly troubling.", "timestamp": "1326171074"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1326171314399", "service": "gp", "text": "As you say, increasing income matters. Also, not buying a laptop would decrease my income quite a lot...", "timestamp": 1326171314}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1326201018439", "service": "gp", "text": "@Todd\n \"It implies that you are personally responsible for solving the world's problems, and that anything you spend your time, effort, or money on other then that is practically a crime.\"\n
\n
\nIn truth, that's not far from how I think of it. When there are people dying for senseless reasons and I can do something about it, I don't see how I can just go about living my life doing nothing. I think most people see this and recognize that if they fully accepted it they would never get to do anything fun, and so fully reject it. I deal with the borderline absurd moral weight by walling it off with strict limits, setting aside 2/3 of my pay to not be given away. Once I'm working within that 2/3, decisions have normal moral weight, not affecting what is donated, and it's only the initial 1/3-2/3 division that occasionally makes me feel really guilty.", "timestamp": 1326201018}, {"author": "Jonah", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/304514019585130?comment_id=304997316203467", "anchor": "fb-304997316203467", "service": "fb", "text": "Jeremy: A very large majority of people have strong negative associations with killing children, whether directly or indirectly. I doubt that the perspective that you propose can lead to any good independently of whether overpopulation is a problem.

Why do you think that overpopulation is a problem?", "timestamp": "1326209226"}, {"author": "George", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/304514019585130?comment_id=305032302866635", "anchor": "fb-305032302866635", "service": "fb", "text": "Although I think pollution, in particular carbon emissions, is the problem, not overpopulation, if the earth had a factor of 10 fewer people and a stable population, those problems would be much easier to solve.", "timestamp": "1326213822"}, {"author": "Kiran", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/304514019585130?comment_id=305035396199659", "anchor": "fb-305035396199659", "service": "fb", "text": "The most obvious population-related issue is the near extinction of our fisheries. Carbon pollution is an issue, not just from cars, but from cooking fires and coal power plants. And while America's farmland can produce more food with a large energy input, the rest of the world's farmland is at near capacity FWIU, and all of it is already in use. And of course population increases drive up energy prices as well, driving up food prices everywhere, leaving less money to solve other problems.", "timestamp": "1326214171"}, {"author": "Jonah", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/304514019585130?comment_id=305164752853390", "anchor": "fb-305164752853390", "service": "fb", "text": "George, Kiran: Why do you think that carbon pollution is a serious issue? I don't necessarily disagree but neither am I convinced that this is the case.

Kiran:

>And of course population increases drive up energy prices as well, driving up food prices everywhere, leaving less money to solve other problems.

But a priori increase in population should increase world GDP, creating *more* money to solve problems (including alternate energy, etc.): why do you think that the increase in demand would be outweigh increase in supply?", "timestamp": "1326229341"}, {"author": "Jeremy", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/304514019585130?comment_id=305175139519018", "anchor": "fb-305175139519018", "service": "fb", "text": "My previous comment was tongue-in-cheek, but there are some interesting issues to discuss with respect to overpopulation. I think we can take as a given that humans (in any significant numbers/sustainable way) aren't going to be leaving Earth anytime soon, and therefore the total amount of \"resources\", by which I mean anything from energy resources, mineral resources, land resources, water supplies, to places to dump pollution and waste, are \"fixed\", where for non-renewable resources it is the total quantity that is fixed while for renewable resources it is the maximum rate of consumption that is fixed.", "timestamp": "1326230550"}, {"author": "Jeremy", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/304514019585130?comment_id=305179302851935", "anchor": "fb-305179302851935", "service": "fb", "text": "For mineral resources, technological improvements may allow for extraction of previously inaccessible resources, but this obviously can only go so far. The only real way to offset increasing population is to improve efficiency such that resource use per person decreases, but while in some areas this may be happening, on the whole the trend seems to be very much in the opposite direction. GDP by itself isn't particularly meaningful in analyzing this problem: an additional person will use some amount of resources, and you have to consider whether they will in some way, either directly or indirectly, contribute to efficiency improvements to an extent that offsets their resource use. (I'm guessing few, if any, people on the planet meet this criteria.)", "timestamp": "1326231080"}, {"author": "George", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/304514019585130?comment_id=305208189515713", "anchor": "fb-305208189515713", "service": "fb", "text": "Jonah, carbon pollution is causing climate change. This climate change is not good for humans, especially poor humans. Even worse, there is a lot of uncertainty in how bad the effects on societies and ecosystems of the change will end up being! It is a very bad idea to perform a giant experiment with the only planet we have to live on. We are already seeing an increasing number of extreme weather events that kill many people, such as floods, heat waves, storms, hurricanes, etc. Take for example the current flood in Thailand (which may or may not be due to climate change, my point is floods are bad and we will get a lot more of them and this is an example of a flood). People in North America mostly notice this flood because of 50% of the production of the top two global hard drive manufacturers being completely disrupted which has caused supply and price shocks for hard drives. Droughts, famine, and disruption of food and water supplies are already happening and will get drastically worse as warming continues killing many people. Take a look at the Copenhagen synthesis report if you are interested in more http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport . One of the more frightening effects to me is the disruption of marine ecosystems through ocean acidification. The rate of change of ocean chemistry is exceptionally high, higher than previous ocean-acidification related extinction events in the history of the planet, events that took marine ecosystems hundreds of thousands of years to recover from. It is nearly impossible to predict exactly what new ocean ecosystems will look like, but we have no reason to believe that they will be as helpful and hospitable for human life on the planet. Hopefully when food and water supplies get disrupted that won't lead to more war, but I have no idea if it will or not.", "timestamp": "1326234661"}, {"author": "Jonah", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/304514019585130?comment_id=305209916182207", "anchor": "fb-305209916182207", "service": "fb", "text": "Jeremy:

Regarding renewable resources; historically there's been an inverse correlation between fertility and wealth so it's not implausible that the population levels off or decreases soon without any disaster (e.g. mass starvation) occurring .

Regarding nonrenewable resources: I agree with what you say, but the conclusion \"... therefore population growth / high population is a bad thing\" doesn't immediately follow. Is there anything wrong with more people being around now at the cost of fewer people being around later?

Your model implies that the number of human-hours that can be lived in the future is capped (at a fairly small level) by the present amounts of non-renewable resources on Earth. This suggests that the opportunity cost of using resources now rather than later is not very large.

Now, one can still argue that low population / slow population growth is better than high population / fast population growth on the grounds that the former possibility would give us more time to find more efficient ways to use the limited supply of non-renewable resources. But it's not clear that time is the factor limiting our ability to develop efficient ways of using non-renewable resources.

Furthermore, if humans can change their biology in the medium term (~50 years) so as to allow for sustainable existence in space then assumption of a small cap on non-renewable resources may cease to be an issue.", "timestamp": "1326234900"}, {"author": "Jonah", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/304514019585130?comment_id=305220889514443", "anchor": "fb-305220889514443", "service": "fb", "text": "George:

Thanks for the link.

I agree that model uncertainty is a good reason to be concerned about global warming. I also share your impressions about relatively fast climate change causing weather to be irregular and that the effect of irregular weather today is suffering and death. (The former impression is based on cursory impressions that the scientific consensus is correct rather than subject matter expertise.)

The key relevant question to my mind is *on what time scale are the environmental changes caused by global warming expected to occur in relation to our actions?* If the changes are to occur relatively soon (e.g. if ocean acidification leading massive food shortage is 10 years off) then one can expect serious adverse consequences. If the changes are far off (50+ years) then it seems plausible that in the interim we will develop new technologies to deal with them (e.g. easily synthesized food; ability to counterbalance the change in ocean pH, etc.)

In either case, if there's a serious time delay between carbon emissions and global warming then it may not be worth worrying about carbon emissions (short-term effects are a result of our past actions which we can't undo; over the long run the paradigm changes in ways that often make past predictions & concerns irrelevant).

If there's very little time delay then there's strong reason to work to reduce carbon emissions to the extent that doing so is possible.", "timestamp": "1326236502"}, {"author": "George", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/304514019585130?comment_id=305231382846727", "anchor": "fb-305231382846727", "service": "fb", "text": "Depending on the change, many of the bad effects will happen in our lifetime and they will get worse and worse. They are already happening now. Everyone whose water supply is based on glacial runoff is in danger in a matter of a few years. Hurricanes hit North America and cause lots of damage, stronger and more destructive tornadoes are already happening and will just get worse and worse. Within about 5 +/- 5 years, because of new fossil fuel power plants being built today and lock-in effects (it takes energy to develop and construct new energy sources), we will pass a point of no return and then there will be no plausible human action to stop dangerous climate change since loads of carbon currently sequestered in the permafrost will be released so even if humanity goes to 0 emissions of carbon, bad things will still happen. Even if the time scale of problems was longer, I don't think technological innovation is going to save us. I suggest the excellent blog http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/ about the energy problem and how to deal with it.", "timestamp": "1326238090"}, {"author": "Kiran", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/304514019585130?comment_id=305271656176033", "anchor": "fb-305271656176033", "service": "fb", "text": "An increase in population only increases GDP if those people are producing more than they consume. If they need my $800 to even live to adulthood,

As for carbon pollution, I believe it's a problem because historical periods of high atmospheric CO2 are correlated with planetary conditions that are inhospitable to humans. Michael Novacek covered one such period in his book _Terra_, Peter Ward covered another in _Under a Green Sky_. Ward raises the prospect of ocean acidification, which leads H2S producing bacteria to dominate the upper oceans, turning our atmosphere toxic.", "timestamp": "1326243962"}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1326246020703", "service": "gp", "text": "If that's the case, why do you set the division at 1/3-2/3? If you truly are obligated to bear that moral burden, then there's no justification for it. But I don't think you are- the world is full of people with the means to contribute, and the fact that they don't doesn't mean you have to pick up all of the slack, or even as much as is maximally possible for you to pick up. Doing your part and otherwise taking care of yourself, your family, etc., seems entirely morally reasonable to me.\n
\n
\nI'm also wondering what the world would look like if everyone donated all the money they had above subsistence level. It's hard to envision all of the economic ramifications of that, but I think the net result would be a much poorer world- after all, smartphones are certainly above subsistence level. Perhaps given an appropriately weighted utility function, world utility would nonetheless be higher, because we'd improve on a lot of negative utility. Or maybe not- maybe the poorest would be a bit better off, but so many people would be so much poorer that the net effect would be negative (particularly in the long run, if we were \"stuck\" technologically). Concentration of wealth does have its benefits. I realize, by the way, that you already mentioned the example of investing so as to increase your future earnings and thus your giving, but in the absence of significant consumption I'm not sure what there would be available to invest in. That may just be a failing of my imagination, though- maybe people would be clever enough to invent smartphones (among other things) just for the purpose of increasing productivity, and thus wealth generation, and thus ability to help others.", "timestamp": 1326246020}, {"author": "David German", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111229345142780712481", "anchor": "gp-1326254315318", "service": "gp", "text": "@Todd\n \n
\n
\n\"If that's the case, why do you set the division at 1/3-2/3? If you truly are obligated to bear that moral burden, then there's no justification for it.\"\n
\n
\nPsychological sustainability, maybe? Modeling your own future behavior, this kind of ratio might maximize total giving.\n
\n
\n\"I'm also wondering what the world would look like if everyone donated all the money they had above subsistence level.\"\n
\n
\nYeah. Even if there's a utilitarian moral imperative to give that much (and I agree with you there isn't), it might be weaker or absent in a world where massive altruism is the norm. There would be less low-hanging basic-needs work left, and more low-hanging technological progress in other fields to pursue. \n
\n
\n\"Concentration of wealth does have its benefits.\"\n
\n
\n+1, as it's both the incentive for productivity and the means to take on risk. I don't think that's an argument against in this context, though. Concentrating wealth by being highly productive is a big part of the \n@Jeff Kaufman\n plan, right? The other part is using that wealth to purchase marginal-lives-saved through risky, under-funded ventures. \n
\n
\nThe larger and more informed the market for marginal-lives-saved, the better approaches we'll get for producing them. Who knows what that would mean for the direction of technology, but I don't think it's stagnation.", "timestamp": 1326254315}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1326270548760", "service": "gp", "text": "@David German\n \n
\n
\n\"Psychological sustainability, maybe? Modeling your own future behavior, this kind of ratio might maximize total giving.\"\n
\n
\nAs in, because you have more left over to invest, thus you do have wealth concentration (which only still potentially gives you maximization of giving if none of what you keep is spent on yourself beyond subsistence)? Or as in, due to weakness of will, you don't anticipate being able to sustain a maximized giving rate, even if it is morally obligatory?", "timestamp": 1326270548}, {"author": "David German", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111229345142780712481", "anchor": "gp-1326290499971", "service": "gp", "text": "@Todd\n I meant the latter.", "timestamp": 1326290499}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1326291376148", "service": "gp", "text": "@Todd\n \n@David German\n \n
\n
\nTodd: \"If that's the case, why do you set the division at 1/3-2/3? If you truly are obligated to bear that moral burden, then there's no justification for it.\"\n
\n
\nDavid: \"Psychological sustainability, maybe? Modeling your own future behavior, this kind of ratio might maximize total giving.\"\n
\n
\nI don't justify the 1/3-2/3 division on utilitarian grounds. It's just the most I'm willing to give. I have a very poor sense of what ratio might maximize total giving, but I suspect it's higher than where I'm currently splitting. (Though, \n@Julia\n has her ratio at 1/1-0/1 and the money I don't give away goes to support us both, which confuses this all.)\n
\n
\nTodd: \"The world is full of people with the means to contribute, and the fact that they don't doesn't mean you have to pick up all of the slack, or even as much as is maximally possible for you to pick up. Doing your part and otherwise taking care of yourself, your family, etc., seems entirely morally reasonable to me.\"\n
\n
\nI don't think of morals as \"have to\". It's not that any of us is obligated to give, but that the positive effect of giving is much larger than any positive effect I might have spending on myself. Other people's behavior doesn't affect this, except inasmuch as others giving more would start to reduce the positive effect of giving (diminishing returns).\n
\n
\nTodd: \"I'm also wondering what the world would look like if everyone donated all the money they had above subsistence level.\"\n
\n
\nBefore we get into what this world would be like, know that I'm not advocating this. I think it would probably be better if I were willing to give this much, in the current world, but I'm not actually willing to do that. Even if I were, I agree with David that the moral imperative for giving \"might be weaker or absent in a world where massive altruism is the norm.\"\n
\n
\nI think the biggest problem with your massive-giving world is that we don't know how to make anything except capitalism get proper feedback. When people are spending their own money to get things for themselves, they're in a good position to evaluate product/service quality and choose between competitors. There's a market, and it works reasonably well. When people give their money to charity they don't have this feedback at all: if my donations were being entirely embezzled it wouldn't affect me personally. I can use Give Well's reviews to find charities that are doing good work, but I really have to go out of my way to do this, and for more researchy charities evaluation is very hard. Making sure that money being spent on other people's happiness is effective doesn't happen by default and is very difficult. I see a role for charity in helping people in ways capitalism is poorly suited for, and I think it's not close to filling the possibilities of that role yet, but I actually think if we were to move all the money we currently spend above the subsistence level into charities it wouldn't improve the world.\n
\n
\nDavid: \"Concentrating wealth by being highly productive is a big part of the Jeff Kaufman plan, right?\"\n
\n
\nAs in \"earn a lot of money\"? Yes.\n
\n
\nDavid: \"using that wealth to purchase marginal-lives-saved through risky, under-funded ventures.\"\n
\n
\nI don't currently know where it makes the most sense to give. I'm not currently researching for a donation (though Julia is) but a top contender would be Give Well's current top charity, the Against Malaria Foundation, who distribute long lasting insecticide treated nets. I think they do well with \"purchasing marginal lives-saved\" but I don't think they are comparatively risky: it's pretty clear what they're doing and what the effects are. Risky would mean supporting research, in the form of pilot programs or charity evaluations. Or even SIAI or something looking at existential risk (if you assume the SIAI will save the lives of every human on earth at their current budget, that's $0.08/life-saved! j/k ) These riskier options might be better than simply funding a tested effective intervention, I'm not sure.", "timestamp": 1326291376}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1326291857530", "service": "gp", "text": "@Jeff Kaufman\n I'm surprised you think of these in separate buckets, what you give and what Julia gives.", "timestamp": 1326291857}, {"author": "David German", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111229345142780712481", "anchor": "gp-1326292109388", "service": "gp", "text": "@Jeff Kaufman\n By \"risky\", I just meant \"has a range of possible outcomes\". I agree AMF is low-risk as these things go, but the dollars-per-life-saved still has substantial error bounds. (This isn't a criticism! You have to take risks to get big results.)", "timestamp": 1326292109}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1326292514886", "service": "gp", "text": "@David German\n Ok; we agree. I just thought you had the impression I had (a) made up my mind and (b) supported even riskier charities.", "timestamp": 1326292514}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1326292740549", "service": "gp", "text": "@David Chudzicki\n It's mostly practical: we each decide how much of what we earn gets given away (33%, 100%) and where the money we give away goes. The money not given away is then joint money that we spend together.", "timestamp": 1326292740}, {"author": "Adam Yie", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/114873051319510815414", "anchor": "gp-1326307690460", "service": "gp", "text": "> It's mostly practical: we each decide how much of what we earn gets given away (33%, 100%) and where the money we give away goes. The money not given away is then joint money that we spend together.\n
\n
\nDid you discuss what you'd do if you both decided to give away 100%?", "timestamp": 1326307690}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1326315186003", "service": "gp", "text": "@Adam Yie\n One of us would chicken out, and it would be me.", "timestamp": 1326315186}, {"author": "Julia", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/114588710186521489410", "anchor": "gp-1326322012232", "service": "gp", "text": "@David Chudzicki\n - Not just separate buckets - separate bank accounts. We were unable to agree on what proportion of our income to give, which leads to us having separate budgets. This way if I'm free to give all my money away, and Jeff is free to spend money on non-charity stuff without me trying to talk him out of it. (The system works because Jeff is willing to subsidize me, which is very nice of him.) Also, so far we've given to the same charity, but if we have different picks later we would be able to give our own funds as we thought best.\n
\n@Adam Yie\n - We obviously can't both give 100% because we would starve. It's possible to get by with no earned income, but they don't give you food stamps if you earn money and then give it away. I would be okay with pushing the envelope farther than we currently do, but I also recognize that the farther I push the voluntary poverty envelope, the more likely we are to go crazy and quit.", "timestamp": 1326322012}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1326322421972", "service": "gp", "text": "@Jeff Kaufman\n \"Before we get into what this world would be like, know that I'm not advocating this.\"\n
\n
\nI know. My problem is with the site you were quoting from, and the implications of caching all financial decisions in terms of opportunity cost against dead children. You haven't generally done or advocated that.\n
\n
\n\"I don't think of morals as \"have to\". It's not that any of us is obligated to give, but that the positive effect of giving is much larger than any positive effect I might have spending on myself. Other people's behavior doesn't affect this, except inasmuch as others giving more would start to reduce the positive effect of giving (diminishing returns).\"\n
\nHow do you think of morals? Ought to strikes me as having just as much force as have to. What other options are there?\n
\n
\nThe reason that the positive effect is so large is, at least in part, due to other people's behavior. So if you're obligated to respond to that opportunity in full (as implied by the dead children weighting system, not by you), that means that you're obligated to make up for other people's shortcomings. At least, that's how it seems to me.", "timestamp": 1326322421}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1326384671183", "service": "gp", "text": "@Todd\n \"How do you think of morals?\"\n
\n
\nI think of things in terms of their effects: \nhttp://www.jefftk.com/news/2011-11-08.html\n . You should do whatever has the best outcome overall.", "timestamp": 1326384671}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1326384897932", "service": "gp", "text": "Jeff: \"Before we get into what this world would be like, know that I'm not advocating this.\"\n
\n
\n@Todd\n \"I know. My problem is with the site you were quoting from, and the implications of caching all financial decisions in terms of opportunity cost against dead children. You haven't generally done or advocated that.\"\n
\n
\nSorry, confusing meanings of \"this\". I meant that I wasn't advocating for a world where \"everyone donated all the money they had above subsistence level\". I think looking at \"financial decisions in terms of opportunity cost against dead children\" may or may not be good, on balance.", "timestamp": 1326384897}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1326385067078", "service": "gp", "text": "@Jeff Kaufman\n \"I think of things in terms of their effects: \nhttp://www.jefftk.com/news/2011-11-08.html\n . You should do whatever has the best outcome overall.\"\n
\n
\nSo how is that \"should\" different from \"have to\" or \"ought\"?", "timestamp": 1326385067}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1326385168710", "service": "gp", "text": "I think if you \"have to\" do something, you'll actually do it. (Seems like the language just works that way. You can't say \"I had to! I had to! But I didn't.)", "timestamp": 1326385168}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1326385469735", "service": "gp", "text": "@Todd\n '''how is that \"should\" different from \"have to\" or \"ought\"?'''\n
\n
\nBecause I'm being pragmatic. I recognize people, including me, won't do everything they can to maximize overall outcomes if it comes at the expense of their personal happiness. So I want to say it's a good thing when people move in that direction without coming down too hard on myself or others when they fail to go all the way. If I viewed this as \"have to\" as in \"you have to give all your money away down to the subsistence level\" people would say \"you're crazy\" and do nothing, because that's too much to ask.", "timestamp": 1326385469}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1326385532791", "service": "gp", "text": "Does that apply to all morals, or just to some subset? I think there are certainly moral obligations that are non-negotiable.", "timestamp": 1326385532}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1326385859989", "service": "gp", "text": "@Todd\n example?", "timestamp": 1326385859}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1326386963076", "service": "gp", "text": "@Jeff Kaufman\n Don't kill, don't steal, don't rape? There might be extenuating circumstances (probably not so much for rape), but I don't think that impacts the baseline idea that it's not optional (i.e., extenuating circumstances don't move it from \"have to\" to \"should\", they just get overriden by other rules.", "timestamp": 1326386963}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1326389543674", "service": "gp", "text": "@Todd\n \"don't kill, don't steal, don't rape\"\n
\n
\nThese all involve people valuing their gain far more than the losses to others. They are so far towards the end of selfish disproportionate valuation that I think there's pragmatically nothing to gain by refusing to use \"have to\" or \"mandatory\".", "timestamp": 1326389543}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1326415347713", "service": "gp", "text": "@Jeff Kaufman\n \"They are so far towards the end of selfish disproportionate valuation that I think there's pragmatically nothing to gain by refusing to use \"have to\" or \"mandatory\"\"\n
\n
\nThose actions remain immoral regardless of the extent to which they are selfishly motivated, don't they? Stealing to feed your family (even in cases of desperate need) isn't usually considered a \"should not\", but a \"must not\". Yet I find it hard to believe that such a case would result in an obviously massively greater negative outcome then would the difference between, say, spending $2000 to save a child's life and spending $2000 toward a TV spot campaigning against gay rights.", "timestamp": 1326415347}, {"author": "Julia", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/114588710186521489410", "anchor": "gp-1332534199009", "service": "gp", "text": "I wrote more on this topic: \nhttp://www.givinggladly.com/2012/03/tradeoffs.html", "timestamp": 1332534199}]}