What’s the point in throwing ridiculous amount of money on saving one life of old person in wealthy country, if you can make hundreds of undercapitalized people in poor countries productive for the same price?
Well if that person is you or your grandfather selfishness sounds a pretty good and human reason.
Most people don’t spend their own money on saving their grandparents, they spend other people’s money. Don’t act surprised that other people’s willingness to throw tens of millions at your grandfather’s last year is not unlimited.
Also if people really cared about how long other people in their country lived, total cigarette ban would be a super simple and super cheap way to start (especially since e-cigarettes are an existing and viable low-cancer substitute—people want the psychoactive bits not the tar). And trans fat ban—or at least strict labeling requirement (which would amount to the same, since nobody want that, and trans fats don’t have any special taste or anything, they’re just industrial poison in food). Or throwing some money at making roads safer (most accidents happen on small fraction of bad spots). And in countless other ways. Throwing ridiculous amount of money at people when they’re oldest is stupid way to achieve an already stupid goal.
And trans fat ban—or at least strict labeling requirement (which would amount to the same, since nobody want that, and trans fats don’t have any special taste or anything, they’re just industrial poison in food).
I think you overestimate the degree to which people are intentional about their food intake.
total cigarette ban would be a super simple and super cheap way to start
I don’t think that would work. Marijuana is already illegal but people smoke it anyway, and the war against it costs lots of money.
e-cigarettes are an existing and viable low-cancer substitute
I’ve heard that lots of people start smoking for signalling purposes (some people even claim it’s the only reason why anyone starts smoking at all), and I’m not sure e-cigarettes would send exactly the same signals.
I was collecting papers on the topic of dependency on nicotine-replacement therapy (patches, gums, inhalers) the other day, and I was fascinated to read in explanations of why so little non-smoker data was available that, prior to 1996, you needed a prescription to buy them in the USA.
‘So’, I thought, ‘before 1996, if you were over 18-21, you could buy any tobacco product you wanted in unlimited amounts and guaranteed that you were cutting several years on average off your life expectancy; yet you could not buy any amount of nicotine patches which come with essentially no side-effects and absolutely zero effect on life expectancy. Oh America!’
I’m now reminded of the brother of a friend of mine who has never smoked, but nevertheless has an annoying nicotine craving that stems from having tried out a nicotine patch in his teens.
“Total cigarette ban” doesn’t mean “Very few people smoke”, it means “Almost all smokers redirect their money to the black market; hope you like financing terrorist groups”.
France has thrown lots of money at making people drive safely, it’s working (and fines are a big part of it so there’s money recovered that way) but it doesn’t seem miraculously impressive. Making roads themselves safer tend to encourage reckless driving so it’s not obvious there are big gains here.
France has thrown lots of money at making people drive safely, it’s working (and fines are a big part of it so there’s money recovered that way) but it doesn’t seem miraculously impressive.
Also if people really cared about how long other people in their country lived, total cigarette ban would be a super simple and super cheap way to start [...] And trans fat ban [...]
The lack of these bans doesn’t mean people don’t really care about lifespan; it could just mean they value something else more, such as the autonomy represented by being able to smoke cigarettes or eat trans fats. Or (as implied by some of this comment’s siblings) they don’t think those measures work well enough to justify whatever the bans’ anticipated downsides.
Most people don’t spend their own money on saving their grandparents, they spend other people’s money.
Upper middle class and the wealthy do this quite a bit, even in countries with universal healthcare.
Don’t act surprised that other people’s willingness to throw tens of millions at your grandfather’s last year is not unlimited.
Why in the world would I? I don’t care very much about other people’s grandfathers, why should they care about mine? I’m indirectly willing to kill quite a few people to save my own life or that of my family. Even my friends are each worth more than one life to me, going of revealed preferences.
Also you are forgetting that the purpose of the state is basically to serve the desires of its citizens, it is not a global utility maximizer. That citizens of a country would cooperate for selfish gain is hardly unheard of. Also we care more about people in our in-group more than people in our out-group. Many different people identify these by culture, subculture, company, religion, citizenship, ideology, language, profession, nationality or language.
Poor people in Africa are far. We feel more idealistic and more moral thinking about helping them. We get more brownie points of signalling we wish too or will help them than by helping local poor people. But we are ironically less likley to do anything for their benefit, since that is mostly a near action. We more accurately perceive that local poor people are sometimes nasty but we end up helping them more anyway.
Also when thinking about helping people in far places we are less even likley to be pragmatic about the best way to acheive this. Considering how much we fail even at helping those around us this can be a dispiriting.
Throwing ridiculous amount of money at people when they’re oldest is stupid way to achieve an already stupid goal.
You should read “The great Charity Storm”. We systematically overspend stupidly on education, healthcare and helping poor people.
We systematically overspend stupidly on education, healthcare and helping poor people.
Wait, nothing in “The Great Charity Storm” indicates that we overspend on those things. It just says our spending in those areas has increased since 1800, and gives some theories as to why that might be. I would certainly agree that we don’t spend money well in those areas, but it’s not the quantity that’s the problem.
Your statements about what we want to do (care for our in-group, donate to “far” causes to gain status) don’t mean anything about what we should do. I recognize that I have little emotional reason to care about people I’ll never meet who live very different lives from mine, but I believe it’s wrong for them to suffer and die when I could easily prevent that. So I make an effort to think about things that make them feel nearer—their bodies hurt like mine, they protect their children, they make music, they fall in love.
“We’re born to think this way” doesn’t mean you can’t try to change it.
I think it was implied rather strongly by the explanation he offered. I obviously think it plausible if not probable, lest I wouldn’t invoke it.
Around 1800 in England and Russia, the three main do-gooder activities were medicine, school, and alms (= food/shelter for the weak, such as the old or crippled). Today the three spending categories of medicine, school, and alms make up ~40% of US GDP, a far larger fraction than in 1800. Why the vast increase?
My explanation: we long ago evolved strong feelings of respect for these activities, but modern context changes have allowed out-of-equilibrium exploitation of such feelings.
We have evolved strong feeling regarding these activities that are no longer reliable in our modern context. Can you see why this implies we will not only be irrational in our decisions on how much to spend (even in our original context the intuitions where geared towards evolution’s utility function not our own) but also in what way we spend on those things.
but I believe it’s wrong for them to suffer and die when I could easily prevent that.
How familiar are you with the Far vs. Near material on Overcoming Bias? The reason I invoked it was to point out that when thinking in far mode we are more likley to consider such principles very important, yet in near mode much less so. And remember both far and near are shards of desire
How familiar are you with the Far vs. Near material on Overcoming Bias?
Medium-familiar? As a dichotomy, it seems useful if it lets you do things differently because of it. So if you recognize that your far-mode diet isn’t working because your food cravings are near, it may be helpful to make more concrete, near-mode steps. Likewise, if your far-mode ideals say that it’s wrong for people to die of TB when there’s a cheap cure, but you never get around to acting on it or you instead donate to nearer but less efficient causes, doing something to put it in nearer mode might be helpful. As in, “I will look at pictures of people in countries where people die of stupid diseases and remember that they are regular people like me”, or “I will donate to an efficient health charity and then have an ice cream sundae.” (Though his may interfere with the far-mode diet...)
Also you are forgetting that the purpose of the state is basically to serve the desires of its citizens,
(mind-killed)
That’s an interesting notion. I would have thought that the purpose of the state is to oppress its people, and that modern governments are so much nicer because checks and balances / political infighting cause them to be ground to a near-halt.
I should have said the supposed or stated purpose of a state is to serve the desires of its citizens. Maybe I should have been even more fancy and disguised “desires” as rights. Most people vote and behave like the government is the default engine for doing good as they define it, so it didn’t seem to controversial to describe it that way in this context.
You are obviously correct that government’s role (purpose is the wrong word to use) is to oppress its people. Government is nothing but a territorial monopolist of violence, though few people explicitly think about it that way. However it can sometimes be useful to be oppressed.
Also generally I’m of the opinion that in the long run formalized check and balances don’t really work. It seems pretty unlikely that anything like a stable equilibrium of actual power relations can be enforced by something as weak and easily worked around and gamed as laws or constitutions. Many Western Democracies don’t have a strong separation of powers formally and don’t seem any more or less nice.
Now while this may seem like a trivial difference, but it really isn’t. It basically means that formal definitions of the balance of power are for example unable to contain changes in actual power ratios be they caused by technology, culture or economics.
Keeping the polite fiction however works together with other aspect of “democracy” to convince its citizens it is legitimate. Much like divine right was a polite fiction with the same function in a different time. It seems to me very likley that that the reason democracy seems nicer is because it is much more capable of convincing and indoctrinating citizens that it is legitimate and good. A government capable of perfect brainwashing would never need to be mean at all to maintain power.
While I can agree there is a lot of political infighting isn’t this more a result of the iron law of oligarchy than anything designed on purpose?
While I can agree there is a lot of political infighting isn’t this more a result of the iron law of oligarchy than anything designed on purpose?
Meh. I’m agnostic about whether it was “on purpose”. Humans revolt and so select for governments that aren’t revolting.
I’m not sure how the iron law of oligarchy results in political infighting, and i’m skeptical of the iron law of oligarchy, but I don’t think that’s particularly relevant if we agree about the facts on the ground.
Also generally I’m of the opinion that in the long run formalized check and balances don’t really work.
Well, nothing works in the indefinite long run, unless your goal is entropy. It does seem to stop a lot of legislation from being passed / sticking in the US, which I suppose is only a benefit from a particular perspective.
Well if that person is you or your grandfather selfishness sounds a pretty good and human reason.
Most people don’t spend their own money on saving their grandparents, they spend other people’s money. Don’t act surprised that other people’s willingness to throw tens of millions at your grandfather’s last year is not unlimited.
Also if people really cared about how long other people in their country lived, total cigarette ban would be a super simple and super cheap way to start (especially since e-cigarettes are an existing and viable low-cancer substitute—people want the psychoactive bits not the tar). And trans fat ban—or at least strict labeling requirement (which would amount to the same, since nobody want that, and trans fats don’t have any special taste or anything, they’re just industrial poison in food). Or throwing some money at making roads safer (most accidents happen on small fraction of bad spots). And in countless other ways. Throwing ridiculous amount of money at people when they’re oldest is stupid way to achieve an already stupid goal.
I think you overestimate the degree to which people are intentional about their food intake.
IAWYC, but
I don’t think that would work. Marijuana is already illegal but people smoke it anyway, and the war against it costs lots of money.
I’ve heard that lots of people start smoking for signalling purposes (some people even claim it’s the only reason why anyone starts smoking at all), and I’m not sure e-cigarettes would send exactly the same signals.
The legal situation here in Australia of e-cigarettes being more restricted than cigarettes pisses me off when I think about it.
I was collecting papers on the topic of dependency on nicotine-replacement therapy (patches, gums, inhalers) the other day, and I was fascinated to read in explanations of why so little non-smoker data was available that, prior to 1996, you needed a prescription to buy them in the USA.
‘So’, I thought, ‘before 1996, if you were over 18-21, you could buy any tobacco product you wanted in unlimited amounts and guaranteed that you were cutting several years on average off your life expectancy; yet you could not buy any amount of nicotine patches which come with essentially no side-effects and absolutely zero effect on life expectancy. Oh America!’
I’m now reminded of the brother of a friend of mine who has never smoked, but nevertheless has an annoying nicotine craving that stems from having tried out a nicotine patch in his teens.
“Total cigarette ban” doesn’t mean “Very few people smoke”, it means “Almost all smokers redirect their money to the black market; hope you like financing terrorist groups”.
France has thrown lots of money at making people drive safely, it’s working (and fines are a big part of it so there’s money recovered that way) but it doesn’t seem miraculously impressive. Making roads themselves safer tend to encourage reckless driving so it’s not obvious there are big gains here.
Here’s list of countries by traffic fatalities per capita, per vehicle, and per distance travelled. Disparity is just ridiculously huge compared to death cares from just about any other cause, even between seemingly similar countries.
Except there’s no serious evidence for that, and massive counter-evidence (see table above).
The lack of these bans doesn’t mean people don’t really care about lifespan; it could just mean they value something else more, such as the autonomy represented by being able to smoke cigarettes or eat trans fats. Or (as implied by some of this comment’s siblings) they don’t think those measures work well enough to justify whatever the bans’ anticipated downsides.
Upper middle class and the wealthy do this quite a bit, even in countries with universal healthcare.
Why in the world would I? I don’t care very much about other people’s grandfathers, why should they care about mine? I’m indirectly willing to kill quite a few people to save my own life or that of my family. Even my friends are each worth more than one life to me, going of revealed preferences.
Also you are forgetting that the purpose of the state is basically to serve the desires of its citizens, it is not a global utility maximizer. That citizens of a country would cooperate for selfish gain is hardly unheard of. Also we care more about people in our in-group more than people in our out-group. Many different people identify these by culture, subculture, company, religion, citizenship, ideology, language, profession, nationality or language.
Poor people in Africa are far. We feel more idealistic and more moral thinking about helping them. We get more brownie points of signalling we wish too or will help them than by helping local poor people. But we are ironically less likley to do anything for their benefit, since that is mostly a near action. We more accurately perceive that local poor people are sometimes nasty but we end up helping them more anyway.
Also when thinking about helping people in far places we are less even likley to be pragmatic about the best way to acheive this. Considering how much we fail even at helping those around us this can be a dispiriting.
You should read “The great Charity Storm”. We systematically overspend stupidly on education, healthcare and helping poor people.
Wait, nothing in “The Great Charity Storm” indicates that we overspend on those things. It just says our spending in those areas has increased since 1800, and gives some theories as to why that might be. I would certainly agree that we don’t spend money well in those areas, but it’s not the quantity that’s the problem.
Your statements about what we want to do (care for our in-group, donate to “far” causes to gain status) don’t mean anything about what we should do. I recognize that I have little emotional reason to care about people I’ll never meet who live very different lives from mine, but I believe it’s wrong for them to suffer and die when I could easily prevent that. So I make an effort to think about things that make them feel nearer—their bodies hurt like mine, they protect their children, they make music, they fall in love.
“We’re born to think this way” doesn’t mean you can’t try to change it.
I think it was implied rather strongly by the explanation he offered. I obviously think it plausible if not probable, lest I wouldn’t invoke it.
We have evolved strong feeling regarding these activities that are no longer reliable in our modern context. Can you see why this implies we will not only be irrational in our decisions on how much to spend (even in our original context the intuitions where geared towards evolution’s utility function not our own) but also in what way we spend on those things.
How familiar are you with the Far vs. Near material on Overcoming Bias? The reason I invoked it was to point out that when thinking in far mode we are more likley to consider such principles very important, yet in near mode much less so. And remember both far and near are shards of desire
Medium-familiar? As a dichotomy, it seems useful if it lets you do things differently because of it. So if you recognize that your far-mode diet isn’t working because your food cravings are near, it may be helpful to make more concrete, near-mode steps. Likewise, if your far-mode ideals say that it’s wrong for people to die of TB when there’s a cheap cure, but you never get around to acting on it or you instead donate to nearer but less efficient causes, doing something to put it in nearer mode might be helpful. As in, “I will look at pictures of people in countries where people die of stupid diseases and remember that they are regular people like me”, or “I will donate to an efficient health charity and then have an ice cream sundae.” (Though his may interfere with the far-mode diet...)
(mind-killed)
That’s an interesting notion. I would have thought that the purpose of the state is to oppress its people, and that modern governments are so much nicer because checks and balances / political infighting cause them to be ground to a near-halt.
I should have said the supposed or stated purpose of a state is to serve the desires of its citizens. Maybe I should have been even more fancy and disguised “desires” as rights. Most people vote and behave like the government is the default engine for doing good as they define it, so it didn’t seem to controversial to describe it that way in this context.
You are obviously correct that government’s role (purpose is the wrong word to use) is to oppress its people. Government is nothing but a territorial monopolist of violence, though few people explicitly think about it that way. However it can sometimes be useful to be oppressed.
Also generally I’m of the opinion that in the long run formalized check and balances don’t really work. It seems pretty unlikely that anything like a stable equilibrium of actual power relations can be enforced by something as weak and easily worked around and gamed as laws or constitutions. Many Western Democracies don’t have a strong separation of powers formally and don’t seem any more or less nice. Now while this may seem like a trivial difference, but it really isn’t. It basically means that formal definitions of the balance of power are for example unable to contain changes in actual power ratios be they caused by technology, culture or economics.
Keeping the polite fiction however works together with other aspect of “democracy” to convince its citizens it is legitimate. Much like divine right was a polite fiction with the same function in a different time. It seems to me very likley that that the reason democracy seems nicer is because it is much more capable of convincing and indoctrinating citizens that it is legitimate and good. A government capable of perfect brainwashing would never need to be mean at all to maintain power.
While I can agree there is a lot of political infighting isn’t this more a result of the iron law of oligarchy than anything designed on purpose?
Meh. I’m agnostic about whether it was “on purpose”. Humans revolt and so select for governments that aren’t revolting.
I’m not sure how the iron law of oligarchy results in political infighting, and i’m skeptical of the iron law of oligarchy, but I don’t think that’s particularly relevant if we agree about the facts on the ground.
Well, nothing works in the indefinite long run, unless your goal is entropy. It does seem to stop a lot of legislation from being passed / sticking in the US, which I suppose is only a benefit from a particular perspective.
I think that selection filter is much weaker than most imagine. The poor don’t revolt.
Agreed.