I don’t see an alternative recommendation in your post to giving your money to the most needy people in the world. You mention investing in economic tools—could you give an example of an economic tool that you could use your money on that would be better than giving it to a woman and child starving to death in Africa?
I think you are confused. You say I don’t suggest an alternative, but then you correctly identify my suggested alternative in the very next sentence.
To be clear: None of the top recommended charities on GiveWell, including Give Directly, are aimed at famine relief, so if your top concern is starvation, your complaint should be directed at them. But if you want specific examples of such tools, I would certainly say that the funds invested to finance Norman Borlaug ’s research were better spent than wasting them on aid, because that investment created the economic tools to prevent future famines, as opposed to temporary relief. See the Maimonides quote at the top.
Unfortunately, most of the funds invested to finance people like Norman Borlaug turned out not to be financing Norman Borlaug.
Still, if you want to generalize from that example, feel free. The conclusion would be that would-be effective altruists should be sending their money to the Mexican government, which is what was paying Norman Borlaug to do the work that led to his discoveries. We could generalize further and suggest supporting government-sponsored research. But I don’t think there’s any credible way to get from Norman Borlaug to saying that the best way to help the world’s poorest people is to invest in the stock market or to send money to elite US universities like Harvard, which were your preferred options.
Unfortunately, most of the funds invested to finance people like Norman Borlaug turned out not to be financing Norman Borlaug.
Sure, I wasn’t suggesting that Borlaug’s work was replicable.
Still, if you want to generalize from that example, feel free.
When did I generalize from that example? I was merely refuting the crass claim that giving money to a starving woman and child (note the incidental misandry!) must be better than creating economic tools.
I was merely refuting the crass claim that giving money to a starving woman and child [...] must be better than creating economic tools.
But you didn’t refute it, because “give the money to someone who will do as much good as Norman Borlaug” is not an instruction anyone is in a position to follow. “Give the money to someone engaged in plant-breeding research” might be, but the example of Borlaug gives only very weak reason to think that this will be effective. Likewise for “Give the money to a government-funded research institute”, “Give the money to the Mexican government”, “Give the money to someone called Norman”, etc.
note the incidental misandry!
I don’t see any misandry there. There would likewise be no misogyny if Benito had written ”… a father and child starving to death”. In either case, you could argue that there’s some sort of misplaced gender asymmetry going on, but I don’t see that it’s misanythingy. Regardless, is there some point you were making (“people who want to give money to poor people in Africa are sexists!” or something), or was this just a tactical shot aimed at making someone who disagrees with you look bad?
I don’t see an alternative recommendation in your post to giving your money to the most needy people in the world. You mention investing in economic tools—could you give an example of an economic tool that you could use your money on that would be better than giving it to a woman and child starving to death in Africa?
I think you are confused. You say I don’t suggest an alternative, but then you correctly identify my suggested alternative in the very next sentence.
To be clear: None of the top recommended charities on GiveWell, including Give Directly, are aimed at famine relief, so if your top concern is starvation, your complaint should be directed at them. But if you want specific examples of such tools, I would certainly say that the funds invested to finance Norman Borlaug ’s research were better spent than wasting them on aid, because that investment created the economic tools to prevent future famines, as opposed to temporary relief. See the Maimonides quote at the top.
Unfortunately, most of the funds invested to finance people like Norman Borlaug turned out not to be financing Norman Borlaug.
Still, if you want to generalize from that example, feel free. The conclusion would be that would-be effective altruists should be sending their money to the Mexican government, which is what was paying Norman Borlaug to do the work that led to his discoveries. We could generalize further and suggest supporting government-sponsored research. But I don’t think there’s any credible way to get from Norman Borlaug to saying that the best way to help the world’s poorest people is to invest in the stock market or to send money to elite US universities like Harvard, which were your preferred options.
Sure, I wasn’t suggesting that Borlaug’s work was replicable.
When did I generalize from that example? I was merely refuting the crass claim that giving money to a starving woman and child (note the incidental misandry!) must be better than creating economic tools.
But you didn’t refute it, because “give the money to someone who will do as much good as Norman Borlaug” is not an instruction anyone is in a position to follow. “Give the money to someone engaged in plant-breeding research” might be, but the example of Borlaug gives only very weak reason to think that this will be effective. Likewise for “Give the money to a government-funded research institute”, “Give the money to the Mexican government”, “Give the money to someone called Norman”, etc.
I don’t see any misandry there. There would likewise be no misogyny if Benito had written ”… a father and child starving to death”. In either case, you could argue that there’s some sort of misplaced gender asymmetry going on, but I don’t see that it’s misanythingy. Regardless, is there some point you were making (“people who want to give money to poor people in Africa are sexists!” or something), or was this just a tactical shot aimed at making someone who disagrees with you look bad?