Are there any egoist arguments for (EA) aid in Africa? Does investment in Africa’s stability and economic performance offer any instrumental benefit to a US citizen that does not care about the welfare of Africans terminally?
If you are talking about egoistic in the sense that you want as an US citizen outcomes that are generally good for US citizens:
Government-consultant Simon Anholt argues that if a country does a lot of good in the world that results in a positive brand in his TED talk. The better reputation than makes a lot of things easier.
You are treated better when you travel in foreign countries. A lot of positive economic trade happens on the back on good brand reputations. Good reputations reduce war and terrorism.
Spending money on EA interventions likely has better returns for US citizens than spending money on waging wars like the Iraq war on a per-dollar basis.
Simon Anhold is someone who’s payed to consult governments. Both Western governments and countries like Sierra Leone and Saudi Arabia.
If he’s simply talking bullshit why do government seek him out as a highly-payed advisor?
I guess the rejection is more based on the fact that his message seems like it violates deep-seated values on your end about how reality should work than his work being bullshit.
Both Western governments and countries like Sierra Leone and Saudi Arabia. If he’s simply talking bullshit why do government seek him out as a highly-payed advisor?
Because the official who made the proposal gets to look good for consulting with someone high status. There’s a reason consultants have the reputation they do in the business world and governments have even worse internal incentive problems.
My main point is that Simon Anhold is a high status consultant and not a hippy. Lumifer rejects him because he thinks Simon Anhold is simply a person who isn’t serious but a hippy.
He’s payed by governments to advice them how to achieve foreign policy objectives.
The solution he proposes does happen to be more effective than the status quo of achieving foreign policy objectives.
He also gives data-driven advice in a field where most other consultants aren’t.
I guess the rejection is more based on the fact that his message seems like it violates deep-seated values on your end about how reality should work than his work being bullshit.
Lumifer rejects him because he thinks Simon Anhold is simply a person who isn’t serious but a hippy.
How about you let Lumifer speak for Lumifer’s rejection, rather than tilting at straw windmills?
How about you let Lumifer speak for Lumifer’s rejection, rather than tilting at straw windmills?
I think it’s valuable for discussion to make clear statements. That allows other people to either agree with them or reject them. Both of those moves the discussion forward. Being to wage to be wrong is bad.
There’s nothing straw about the analysis of how most people who are not aware who Simon Anhold happens to be will pattern match the argument.
Simon Anhold makes his case based on non-trival empiric research that Lumifer very likely is unaware. If he would be aware of the research I don’t think he would have voted down the post and called it bullshit. I even believe that’s a charitible intepretation of Lumifer’s writing.
I didn’t downvote because it was already at minus one, but it seemed to apply mainly to government policies rather than private donations and be missing the point because of it, and “miss the point so as to bring up politics in your response” is not good.
There are definitely social benefits to being seen as generous. Also, a lot of infectious diseases originate in Africa, which might eventually spread into other countries if we don’t help control them in Africa. Overall I doubt the selfish benefits are sufficient to make it a good deal for a typical person.
Are there any egoist arguments for (EA) aid in Africa? Does investment in Africa’s stability and economic performance offer any instrumental benefit to a US citizen that does not care about the welfare of Africans terminally?
If you are talking about egoistic in the sense that you want as an US citizen outcomes that are generally good for US citizens:
Government-consultant Simon Anholt argues that if a country does a lot of good in the world that results in a positive brand in his TED talk. The better reputation than makes a lot of things easier.
You are treated better when you travel in foreign countries. A lot of positive economic trade happens on the back on good brand reputations. Good reputations reduce war and terrorism.
Spending money on EA interventions likely has better returns for US citizens than spending money on waging wars like the Iraq war on a per-dollar basis.
I’m curious why this was downvoted. The last statement, which has political context?
I downvoted this because it was content-free bullshit. You asked :-/
Simon Anhold is someone who’s payed to consult governments. Both Western governments and countries like Sierra Leone and Saudi Arabia. If he’s simply talking bullshit why do government seek him out as a highly-payed advisor?
I guess the rejection is more based on the fact that his message seems like it violates deep-seated values on your end about how reality should work than his work being bullshit.
Because the official who made the proposal gets to look good for consulting with someone high status. There’s a reason consultants have the reputation they do in the business world and governments have even worse internal incentive problems.
My main point is that Simon Anhold is a high status consultant and not a hippy. Lumifer rejects him because he thinks Simon Anhold is simply a person who isn’t serious but a hippy. He’s payed by governments to advice them how to achieve foreign policy objectives.
The solution he proposes does happen to be more effective than the status quo of achieving foreign policy objectives.
He also gives data-driven advice in a field where most other consultants aren’t.
How about you let Lumifer speak for Lumifer’s rejection, rather than tilting at straw windmills?
I think it’s valuable for discussion to make clear statements. That allows other people to either agree with them or reject them. Both of those moves the discussion forward. Being to wage to be wrong is bad.
There’s nothing straw about the analysis of how most people who are not aware who Simon Anhold happens to be will pattern match the argument. Simon Anhold makes his case based on non-trival empiric research that Lumifer very likely is unaware. If he would be aware of the research I don’t think he would have voted down the post and called it bullshit. I even believe that’s a charitible intepretation of Lumifer’s writing.
I didn’t downvote because it was already at minus one, but it seemed to apply mainly to government policies rather than private donations and be missing the point because of it, and “miss the point so as to bring up politics in your response” is not good.
I’m not exactly sure. My first guess would be karma-slash damage from other conversations.
There are definitely social benefits to being seen as generous. Also, a lot of infectious diseases originate in Africa, which might eventually spread into other countries if we don’t help control them in Africa. Overall I doubt the selfish benefits are sufficient to make it a good deal for a typical person.