You’re right, I did miss that in your last paragraph, my bad.
It shouldn’t matter if they care more about human suffering: as long as bird-lives have nonzero value to them (and they revealed this by pledging any money at all), then the money donated should scale with the lives saved.
If they couldn’t afford more, then they already made a mistake in donating their maximum to the first arbitrary opportunity presented. That’s like a broader kind of scope insensitivity—valuing all large-sounding benefits exactly the same.
And, if they only pledged money to make themselves look good, they still failed due to scope insensitivity, because it looks bad to value 200,000 lives as little as 2000.
Anyway, as jimrandomh said, other examples are easy to find. I wouldn’t believe in scope insensitivity if I’d never heard anything like the bird example, but I have.
If they couldn’t afford more, then they already made a mistake in donating their maximum to the first arbitrary opportunity presented.
if I understand you correctly, your position is: unless a person is able to donate more money to save more birds, it is a mistake to donate anything at all.
so a little old lady who has $60 to spare gives it to a wildlife charity, but according to you that is a human brain error because she doesn’t have another sixty bucks to spare. interesting, if true.
I think the problem is that you are trying to say too much and have ended up with a post that says nothing of any value. your first and third paragraphs are demonstrably false, which is why I ignored them. in the second paragraph you literally said: “If they couldn’t afford more, then they already made a mistake.” I don’t see that as being susceptible to nuance.
I… don’t think that’s the way discourse works here on LessWrong. Take this as your first moderator warning, if you continue posting and commenting at this level of quality, you will be banned.
You’re right, I did miss that in your last paragraph, my bad.
It shouldn’t matter if they care more about human suffering: as long as bird-lives have nonzero value to them (and they revealed this by pledging any money at all), then the money donated should scale with the lives saved.
If they couldn’t afford more, then they already made a mistake in donating their maximum to the first arbitrary opportunity presented. That’s like a broader kind of scope insensitivity—valuing all large-sounding benefits exactly the same.
And, if they only pledged money to make themselves look good, they still failed due to scope insensitivity, because it looks bad to value 200,000 lives as little as 2000.
Anyway, as jimrandomh said, other examples are easy to find. I wouldn’t believe in scope insensitivity if I’d never heard anything like the bird example, but I have.
if I understand you correctly, your position is: unless a person is able to donate more money to save more birds, it is a mistake to donate anything at all.
so a little old lady who has $60 to spare gives it to a wildlife charity, but according to you that is a human brain error because she doesn’t have another sixty bucks to spare. interesting, if true.
thank you.
No, that’s not my position. Read it again and see if there’s a nuanced view that better fits my words.
I have already replied once but my post seems to have been deleted so I will try again.
I am unable to detect any nuance in your post. perhaps it would be simpler if you were to explicitly say exactly what you mean.
thank you.
I think the problem is that you are trying to say too much and have ended up with a post that says nothing of any value. your first and third paragraphs are demonstrably false, which is why I ignored them. in the second paragraph you literally said: “If they couldn’t afford more, then they already made a mistake.” I don’t see that as being susceptible to nuance.
thank you.
I… don’t think that’s the way discourse works here on LessWrong. Take this as your first moderator warning, if you continue posting and commenting at this level of quality, you will be banned.