On the subject of SENS vs givewell, I think givewell have already kind of abandoned the goal of rational philanthropy in the way that they dismissed x-risk and continue to pour money into developing world aid. SENS could at least change the world eventually and affect billions/trillions of lives, whereas givewell’s third world aid is always going to be a tiny drop in a gargantuan ocean.
SENS could at least change the world eventually and affect billions/trillions of lives, whereas givewell’s third world aid is always going to be a tiny drop in a gargantuan ocean.
This seems backwards to me. GiveWell’s third-world aid probably has big indirect effects, since it’s acting to lift these societies from a bad equilibrium of enduring poverty and underdevelopment. SENS is an interesting research program within gerontology, but that’s the kind of thing that’s going to be pursued anyway if there’s any chance of it being useful. We see this quite directly with RepleniSENS, i.e. stem-cell research, which is a thriving field already—there’s no reason why this could not apply to other parts of the SENS project. Sustained economic growth in the third world would be a big boon to all sorts of science anyway, due to increased scale if nothing else.
since it’s acting to lift these societies from a bad equilibrium
If I agreed with this then I’d be more positive about givewell. I think it’s wishful thinking, though. In reality, societies in Africa are not in a bad equilibrium primarily because of malaria or malnutrition, they’re in a bad equilibrium because of the backwards values that African people hold, such as loyalty to the tribe/extended family rather than the state, lack of support for western values like accountable government, basic rationality, equality under the law, fair enforcement of contracts, etc. We don’t hear much about this because it doesn’t fit with the political narrative of the kind of people who spend their time trying to help the third world.
Malnutrition is the visible surface symptom of “these are uncivilised, backwards people caught in a series of petty tribal wars”.
EDIT: Just let me disclaim that this is not supposed to be an excuse to not help the developing world. I think we should help them, but not by giving out food or bed nets or medicine. They need better political and value systems, which we could (and should) give them via charter cities.
Countries with bad institutions (including the bad cultural values you list) generally end up in the middle-income range; there are many examples in Latin America. And there’s still hope for these to grow further once civil-society institutions get strong enough. Obviously you can find examples where abject poverty is entirely the fault of bad institutions (North Korea), but that’s not the case for the countries that are targeted by top GiveWell charities.
So I looked up the poorest countries in the world. Depending on how you measure it, Malawi, the DR of congo and the Central African Republic are at the bottom.
Wikipedia on the Democratic Republic of Congo:
DR Congo is extremely rich in natural resources but political instability, a lack of infrastructure and a culture of corruption have limited development, extraction and exploitation efforts
The Central African Republic
The Central African Republic Bush War began in 2004 and, despite a peace treaty in 2007 and another in 2011, fighting broke out between government, Muslim, and Christian factions in December 2012, leading to ethnic and religious cleansing
Malawi:
Corruption within the government is seen as a major issue, despite the Malawi Anti-Corruption Bureau’s (ACB) attempts to reduce it. The ACB appears to be successful at finding and prosecuting low level corruption, but higher level officials appear to be able to act with impunity
Malnutrition is the visible surface symptom of “these are uncivilised, backwards people caught in a series of petty tribal wars”.
I agree.
Could you tell me how you came about the list of African backward values? I currently live in an African country; I’d like the names of all the values I’d need to instil to avoid seeing preventable suffering around me.
(FYI I’d thought that having a public list of salaries and paying higher taxes, a la Norway, would be mostly sufficient to fix things)
On the subject of SENS vs givewell, I think givewell have already kind of abandoned the goal of rational philanthropy in the way that they dismissed x-risk and continue to pour money into developing world aid. SENS could at least change the world eventually and affect billions/trillions of lives, whereas givewell’s third world aid is always going to be a tiny drop in a gargantuan ocean.
This seems backwards to me. GiveWell’s third-world aid probably has big indirect effects, since it’s acting to lift these societies from a bad equilibrium of enduring poverty and underdevelopment. SENS is an interesting research program within gerontology, but that’s the kind of thing that’s going to be pursued anyway if there’s any chance of it being useful. We see this quite directly with RepleniSENS, i.e. stem-cell research, which is a thriving field already—there’s no reason why this could not apply to other parts of the SENS project. Sustained economic growth in the third world would be a big boon to all sorts of science anyway, due to increased scale if nothing else.
If I agreed with this then I’d be more positive about givewell. I think it’s wishful thinking, though. In reality, societies in Africa are not in a bad equilibrium primarily because of malaria or malnutrition, they’re in a bad equilibrium because of the backwards values that African people hold, such as loyalty to the tribe/extended family rather than the state, lack of support for western values like accountable government, basic rationality, equality under the law, fair enforcement of contracts, etc. We don’t hear much about this because it doesn’t fit with the political narrative of the kind of people who spend their time trying to help the third world.
Malnutrition is the visible surface symptom of “these are uncivilised, backwards people caught in a series of petty tribal wars”.
EDIT: Just let me disclaim that this is not supposed to be an excuse to not help the developing world. I think we should help them, but not by giving out food or bed nets or medicine. They need better political and value systems, which we could (and should) give them via charter cities.
Countries with bad institutions (including the bad cultural values you list) generally end up in the middle-income range; there are many examples in Latin America. And there’s still hope for these to grow further once civil-society institutions get strong enough. Obviously you can find examples where abject poverty is entirely the fault of bad institutions (North Korea), but that’s not the case for the countries that are targeted by top GiveWell charities.
So I looked up the poorest countries in the world. Depending on how you measure it, Malawi, the DR of congo and the Central African Republic are at the bottom.
Wikipedia on the Democratic Republic of Congo:
The Central African Republic
Malawi:
I agree.
Could you tell me how you came about the list of African backward values? I currently live in an African country; I’d like the names of all the values I’d need to instil to avoid seeing preventable suffering around me.
(FYI I’d thought that having a public list of salaries and paying higher taxes, a la Norway, would be mostly sufficient to fix things)
Thanks for your comment! Can you say which country?
Not in particular, the human brain tends to collect overall impressions rather than keep track of sources.
This sounds like a seriously tough battle.
I wouldn’t say pouring money into the developing world is a tiny drop.
Bill Gates 2014 Annual Letter gives evidence that it’s a very good investment.
http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/