::  Posts  ::  RSS  ::  ◂◂RSS  ::  Contact

Future People and Giving

October 7th, 2011
giving  [html]
In talking to someone on Wednesday about what my goals and values were, they asked whether I valued the happiness of future people, or just current people. For example, if we could somehow make one hundred future children be born happier or healthier, is that equivalent to one hundred children now having the same gains? What seemed strange to me is that he seemed to think this was a question without a clear answer. But how is it different to help someone currently living far away that I will never meet than someone who won't be born for a decade who I will also never meet?

There are practical issues with knowing whether I'm actually making a difference. Helping people in the future is riskier and harder to tell when you're doing well. Similarly, if you help people now, they may then go on to help others, doing more good the sooner they can start. I see these as practical reasons to do work now, however, not an issue of values. If a giant asteroid were 90% likely to hit earth in the next decade, I would spend money on helping some people be more likely survive long enough to reestablish humanity, even if that were nowhere near the most cost effective way to make current people happy.

Which gets us into the question of existential risk. There are things that could end humanity. Nuclear war, asteroid impact, nanotechnology, major climate change, epidemics, and biowarfare, among others. Perhaps I could do more good trying to avert one of these very bad outcomes than by giving to effective charities trying to help people now.

Evaluation for an existential risk organization is very difficult. If my charity administers vaccines, you can determine how effective it is by comparing some of the following metrics with a control group:

  • The number of people vaccinated
  • The number of people getting the disease
  • Self reported happiness
  • School drop out rates
  • Employment rates
  • Income

What is a metric I can use to evaluate a charity that claims to be working to limit the risk of nanotechnology? How do I know if they are effective? Most charities are not effective, even with the best intentions, because it's really hard to do a good job without the feedback of the market. This makes me skeptical of charities like the SIAI that are trying to reduce a very unpredictable future risk.

While I do think an effective charity working on limiting an existential risk might do more good for my dollar than village reach, I'm not sure there is one.

Comment via: google plus, facebook

Recent posts on blogs I like:

Hedonic asymmetries

Creating really good outcomes for humanity seems hard. We get bored. If we don’t get bored, we still don’t like the idea of joy without variety. And joyful experiences only seems good if they are real and meaningful (in some sense we can’t easily pin down…

via The sideways view January 26, 2020

Live the questions now

Here’s some advice that my Godmother, Lynne Caldwell, gave me a few years ago. I found it again the other day and it struck me that at least I understand its wisdom now. She really did get my problem. It feels like he’s speaking directly to me. It’s from …

via Holly Elmore January 23, 2020

International Links: a Revision

In 2011, I wrote a post arguing that international links underperform. I gave examples, using many links nearly all of which have rotted in the 8.5 years since, showing that the ridership on various air and rail city pairs was lower if they were in two di…

via Pedestrian Observations January 22, 2020

more     (via openring)

More Posts:


  ::  Posts  ::  RSS  ::  ◂◂RSS  ::  Contact