Philosophical Vegan Forum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfegrdr ... e=youtu.be
Video is basically how an average person can start getting into effective altruism. Please let us know what you think.

Red wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 3:34 pm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfegrdr ... e=youtu.be
Video is basically how an average person can start getting into effective altruism. Please let us know what you think.

While there are many interesting thoughts there, I think the overall message is wrong. I think the overall message is "Research global problems which are so complicated you cannot understand them and act what you can do about them, while leaving the problems faced by your immediate surroundings unsolved.", and that it is a horrible message to send. When trying to do something about global problems, there is a very good chance you will misunderstand the problem and do something counter-productive about it (like the anti-sweatshop activists), when that chance is much smaller when you are trying to address the problems in your immediate surrounding you have a good understanding of.
And, about voting:

Michael Huemer wrote:One might suggest that citizens have an obligation to become informed, and then vote. But becoming sufficiently informed to know who is the best candidate in a given election is typically extremely difficult. Indeed, it is not implausible to think that for most people and most elections, the task is actually impossible–no matter how much they study, most voters still will not know who the best candidate is, and may not even attain a reasonably high-probability guess. Even if it is not impossible, discovering who is the best candidate is clearly very onerous. It is therefore unreasonable to demand that an individual undertake the enormous costs of acquiring this knowledge, merely to secure a probability of, say, one in ten million of producing a modest benefit for society.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:33 pm I think the overall message is "Research global problems which are so complicated you cannot understand them and act what you can do about them, while leaving the problems faced by your immediate surroundings unsolved.", and that it is a horrible message to send.

How the fuck did you misconstrue the message of my video that badly? I really don't get how you misunderstand things to such a ridiculous extent.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:33 pmWhen trying to do something about global problems, there is a very good chance you will misunderstand the problem and do something counter-productive about it (like the anti-sweatshop activists), when that chance is much smaller when you are trying to address the problems in your immediate surrounding you have a good understanding of.

That's why I recommended charities that have been shown to be effective. YOU, Teo, are in no position to dispute their analyses. It's almost like you didn't the video.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:33 pmAnd, about voting:

I'm not sure if I'd trust a looney anarcho-capitalist on anything related to voting.

Michael Huemer wrote:One might suggest that citizens have an obligation to become informed, and then vote. But becoming sufficiently informed to know who is the best candidate in a given election is typically extremely difficult.

No, it really, really isn't. All it takes is a few Google searches to find out the policies of candidates (and also take time to look up the consensus of the major topics on Wikipedia) and less than an hour of your time. Anyone can do this.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:33 pmIndeed, it is not implausible to think that for most people and most elections, the task is actually impossible–no matter how much they study, most voters still will not know who the best candidate is, and may not even attain a reasonably high-probability guess.

How the hell would he know? Are there studies on this?
You don't have to vote for the best candidate necessarily if it's too difficult, all you have to do is to vote for a candidate that you know won't be terribly harmful and will promote things you care about. If it's really difficult to decide which candidate is the best between say three of them, then the policies they differ on are probably less significant compared to everything else.
If you vote for a candidate that is right on 90% of issues, trying to get to the other 10% isn't important.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:33 pmEven if it is not impossible, discovering who is the best candidate is clearly very onerous.

Again, it really isn't.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:33 pm It is therefore unreasonable to demand that an individual undertake the enormous costs of acquiring this knowledge, merely to secure a probability of, say, one in ten million of producing a modest benefit for society.

I already explained in my video why it's not rational to just view your actions as insignificant since it's such a low chance.

Red wrote:How the fuck did you misconstrue the message of my video that badly?

Then what was the basic message of the video? You are making a video called "How to be a better person?", yet you are mostly talking about global hard-to-understand issues in that video.

Red wrote:YOU, Teo, are in no position to dispute their analyses.

Why not? There are so many factors in determining whether it is better to give money to charity that it is probably impossible to do proper analysis. With your money, you can end up being a successful entrepreneur helping the society a lot more than any charity could. Also, obviously, the best a charity can do is to temporarily alleviate the symptoms of much bigger problems. Why are poor people poor? How can you know for certain a charity will not cause more harm than good in the long run?

Red wrote:All it takes is a few Google searches to find out the policies of candidates

You gotta be joking. How do you know the candidates will implement those policies? Trump has promised to lower the taxes, he did not. Biden has promised to close the concentration camps, he did not.

Red wrote:and also take time to look up the consensus of the major topics on Wikipedia

You gotta be joking. Wikipedia is well-known for its liberal bias.

Red wrote: all you have to do is to vote for a candidate that you know won't be terribly harmful and will promote things you care about

You gotta be joking. Usually, there is no such candidate. There is almost never a candidate that cares about animal rights. And, even if there were such a candidate (let's imagine an incredibly unlikely scenario that Alexandria Ocasio Cortez gets nominated)... they would probably be full of other type of harmful nonsense.

Red wrote:I already explained in my video why it's not rational to just view your actions as insignificant since it's such a low chance.

You realize the president has little or no influence on where the tax money is going, right?

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:19 pm Then what was the basic message of the video? You are making a video called "How to be a better person?", yet you are mostly talking about global hard-to-understand issues in that video.

How are they hard to understand? I think people dying from starvation because they can't afford food isn't hard to understand.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:19 pm Why not? There are so many factors in determining whether it is better to give money to charity that it is probably impossible to do proper analysis.

The charity evaluators I recommended already took care of that.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:19 pmWith your money, you can end up being a successful entrepreneur helping the society a lot more than any charity could.

And unless you donate most of that money (which you don't seem to be supporting) you'd just hoard wealth you don't need. Not useful. Sure you'd create jobs but you don't need yet another big business to do that (which you have a very limited chance of succeeding at anyway).

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:19 pmAlso, obviously, the best a charity can do is to temporarily alleviate the symptoms of much bigger problems. Why are poor people poor? How can you know for certain a charity will not cause more harm than good in the long run?

That's why if we CONTINUE to donate to charities they'll eventually be lifted out of poverty and be able to develop their economies more.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:19 pm You gotta be joking. How do you know the candidates will implement those policies?

Vote them in office and make sure their party controls the legislature then there's a pretty good chance. Obama got a lot done in his first two years when he had strong support from Congress.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:19 pmTrump has promised to lower the taxes, he did not.

Yes he did.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:19 pmBiden has promised to close the concentration camps, he did not.

It's unfortunate that he hasn't done that (yet), but it's not like he didn't fulfill ANY of his promises.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... e-tracker/
He'd definitely be able to do a lot more if he had more support in the Senate (but he's currently being blocked by assholes like Manchin).

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:19 pm You gotta be joking. Wikipedia is well-known for its liberal bias.

So say the radical libertarians.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:19 pm You gotta be joking. Usually, there is no such candidate. There is almost never a candidate that cares about animal rights. And, even if there were such a candidate (let's imagine an incredibly unlikely scenario that Alexandria Ocasio Cortez gets nominated)... they would probably be full of other type of harmful nonsense.

Ah yes, I forgot that animal rights are the only issue.
Come on Teo, there are so many issues to give a damn about, it isn't useful to be a one issue voter (which isn't the same as valuing certain issues over others) and while it's unfortunate that animal rights aren't taken into account as much as it would be ideal, in the US the Democrats tends to favor legislation that protects animals (such as restricting animal testing for cosmetics and supporting animal welfare, and this is a thing in many developed countries), while Republicans are generally anti-animal rights. The fact that you don't know this speaks volumes to your ignorance of politics.

I don't think anyone is saying that there will be a perfect candidate, but a candidate who supports social programs and good energy policies are candidates who will do much more good compared to ones that don't, even if there is another candidate who edges them out.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:19 pm You realize the president has little or no influence on where the tax money is going, right?

Do you have any idea of the powers the President has? Do you have any idea how the US legislative process works?
Don't act like you know more about this than I do, I've studied this more than you ever will.

Video got a like and a positive comment from me. It had a strong intro which, of course, is the most important part in order to keep people watching.

My only disagreement is the assumption that all people would be happier by being more altruistic. Although, I agree that there are a lot of people who would be happier by giving more, I think there are many anusholes who would be happier spending their money on themselves. These people might still benefit from becoming more well-liked because of their generosity but unless they have a way of letting others know of their charity without making it obvious that they are virtue signaling, they would probably be better off spending the money on themselves.

I'm not sure if including different variations of the "fuck" word is beneficial to your delivery. I personally don't mind it and many others might think it adds some color, but I am sure that some people will be turned off by it, and/or perceive you as less smart because of it. Remember that most people who would be interested in this topic are above average IQ.

I still think you need to slow down, but I don't know if others agree with me on this.

Great job!

Jebus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 10:05 am Video got a like and a positive comment from me. It had a strong intro which, of course, is the most important part in order to keep people watching.

I saw, I gave it a heart. You have a very amusing username.

Jebus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 10:05 amMy only disagreement is the assumption that all people would be happier by being more altruistic. Although, I agree that there are a lot of people who would be happier by giving more, I think there are many anusholes who would be happier spending their money on themselves.

I tried to address that by saying that you wouldn't care if you don't have any sense of morality, but I guess I could've made that more clear.

Jebus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 10:05 amThese people might still benefit from becoming more well-liked because of their generosity but unless they have a way of letting others know of their charity without making it obvious that they are virtue signaling, they would probably be better off spending the money on themselves.

Are you referring to the selfish person's happiness or how people ought to be giving for the right reasons?
I agree if you're gonna be altruistic you should do it for the right reasons, but I don't really see any harm in selfish people giving for egoistic reasons. Narcissistic money pays just as well as altruistic money. And who knows, maybe they'll realise that it's good to give.

Jebus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 10:05 amI'm not sure if including different variations of the "fuck" word is beneficial to your delivery. I personally don't mind it and many others might think it adds some color, but I am sure that some people will be turned off by it, and/or perceive you as less smart because of it. Remember that most people who would be interested in this topic are above average IQ.

I get that, but I'm more going for a less formal, more casual tone. I think most of the Effective Altruistic movement is a bit too diplomatic and compromising, and while they certainly are getting things done, I feel it hampers its growth. I go for the more Yourofsky-esque style of being fairly uncompromising and in-your-face. It might not have a very high success rate comparatively speaking, but it'll almost certainly reach more people.

Jebus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 10:05 amI still think you need to slow down, but I don't know if others agree with me on this.

bestofenergy said I do, and I've been trying a little.

Jebus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 10:05 amGreat job!

Thanks, I hope I've been improving.
I've actually decided to try doing one of those shorts, I decided to do one about FairTrade, but it's mostly a rehash of what I said about it in my sweatshops video. This is more of like an experiment. It's done, I just need to figure out the proper settings so it gets uploaded as a short.