Smart

Select Language​▼

16,000+ online now

You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!

You both like Philosophy.

You: Hi. 23. I have many specific interests related to poverty, altruism, electronics, etc

Stranger: Ah okay.

Stranger: Poverty's an interesting one to start with?

You: I agree

Stranger: Have you ever heard of a paper called Statistical Mechanics of Wealth?

You: I haven't

Stranger: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.1518.pdf

Stranger: It compares wealth distributions to the statistical distribution of velocities of gas particles in a closed container.

Stranger: I found that fascinating - economics is so fraught as a system of ideas with convenient policy bias or indeed some questions I think the financial industry has actively tried to not have asked.

Stranger: So really the only firm ground I'd trust for exploring the way the economy works is where there is a startling similarity between a pattern in nature and the economy itself.

Stranger: I'm not saying this has any direct bearing I know of on the issue of poverty.

Stranger: But it would be interesting if only we could actually test it.

Stranger: The notion is people who have a lot of wealth often don't hold onto it generationally.

Stranger: But I wonder how much more or less generational poverty is?

You: Depends on the type of poverty

You: Relative versus absolute/extreme is the broadest category

Stranger: Yeah.

Stranger: Relative is the really operative one at the moment.

Stranger: Too much and it makes a system unstable.

You: Operative in what reguard?

Stranger: Well I feel that a lot of the populism, anti-status quo sentiment and "othering" going on at the moment is either ignorance or being intentionally lead.

Stranger: But it's nevertheless motivated by a profound (and true) sense the system is somehow rigged.

Stranger: People are looking for someone to blame and instead of actually thinking about it are just going on knee jerk, simple ideas like skin colour, gender, or faith.

You: I still don't get your meaning of how relative poverty is the operative category of poverty

You: It depends on the country

Stranger: Well I'm speaking at the moment of the West.

Stranger: And just the current political climate in terms of it seeming more operative.

Stranger: Just an observation not a thought I have to expand.

You: That is what I figured

You: I am much more interested in eliminating or at least lessening extreme poverty

You: rather than a mere income inequality here in the States

Stranger: What solutions do you think are the most efficient?

You: Broad sweeping economic solutions? None.

You: Individual action or doing what one can, is just common sense: comparing the efficiency and efficacy of same cause priority charities or trusting the work of a charity evaluator. GuideStar and GiveWell ~ not too complicated

You: In other words, transparent, cost-effective and tractable

Stranger: Hmm.

Stranger: Charities.

You: Not just any charity

Stranger: I've heard some mixed things about charities in general.

You: That's why I said not any charity

You: It depends on the cause, and then among the charities of that cause

Stranger: Extreme poverty, abject poverty, absolute poverty, destitution, or penury, was originally defined by the United Nations in 1995 as "a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services."[

Stranger: A lot of progress was made on these things however as I recall??

You: Yep

Stranger: Unusual for any government to meet its targets.

You: 40% in 1990

You: 20% in 2010

Stranger: Well it doesn't take much innovation to alleviate the suffering of many.

Stranger: The haber method for example.

Stranger: One man - probably billions of lives.

Stranger: Oh they call it the "Haber Process".

Stranger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

Stranger: So where is there still a problem?

You: I don't get your question

Stranger: Where is there still a high rate of extreme poverty and why?

You: Developing countries, specifically Sub-Saharan Africa

You: I know an intervention working in Kenya

You: called GiveDirectly

You: But there's also India, Haiti, etc

Stranger: Why is Africa still so backward?

You: The why has many different reasons

You: Broadly the poverty trap

Stranger: One thing that's being thrown around a lot now is IQ.

You: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/economics/14-73-the-challenge-of-world-poverty-spring-2011/lecture-notes/MIT14_73S11_Lec2_slides.pdf

Stranger: It is a strange thing seeing countries which were less developed than Africa originally was eclipse them so quickly.

You: That's not a factor

Stranger: Is that still too uncomfortable an idea to approach?

You: Much more has to do with ignorance

You: Rather than anything genetic

You: I'm saying it's not about that in the first place.

Stranger: Not about what?

You: IQ

Stranger: I don't know I mean my study on this subject is negligible.

You: Ignorance, such as not knowing contraceptive methods...

Stranger: But it does seem to me like a reasonable thing to consider a factor given all the context.

Stranger: Why have countries that had worse infrastructure prior eclipsed Sub-Saharan African countries so profoundly?

You: Name one

Stranger: A noteworthy ones to me seem like China, Japan and South Korea.

Stranger: *Sorry

Stranger: Some

Stranger: I don't know I've just seen some interesting things said by aid workers in Africa - because it does seem odd.

Stranger: One thing is that quiet a few of the languages apparently don't really have constructs for gradients or the future.

Stranger: *quite

Stranger: It's quite hard to plan or forecast without those.

Stranger: One take on it is given the lack of seasonal extremes or inclement weather - there wasn't as much push for that sort of long term planning.

Stranger: So it just never cropped up in the language.

You: China, Japan and South Korea have not had worse infrastructure than Sub-Saharan Africa

Stranger: Well compared with the colonial infrastructure in Africa at some points I think they did.

Stranger: They still had all that infrastructure.

Stranger: I mean Japan and South Korea are both remarkable examples of rapid economic development and improvement in standards of living.

You: Furthermore, those are much smaller land masses

Stranger: Yes, it's interesting in fact.

You: among the multitude of other differences

You: https://laughingsquid.com/a-pair-of-maps-demonstrating-the-true-geographical-size-of-the-african-continent/

Stranger: Japan has had to have a high engineering expertise to compensate for the lack of resources.

Stranger: But I would have said that's a hurdle not an asset.

Stranger: Huge quantities of resources in Sub Saharan African countries.

Stranger: Highly fertile land.

Stranger: Minerals.

You: Yes, but broadly

You: I do not see the point on speculating as to why. The point is that there are a lot of people in absolute poverty, trying to live on less than what's required to survive...

Stranger: Well speculating as to why is an attempt to identify the cause instead of treat the symptoms.

You: Besides trying to argue the outcomes of colonial times just seems weak

You: Right, but again, that's also not the case

You: It's not simple band-aid analogy

Stranger: No I don't think that's fair either.

Stranger: And I'm not studied on the subject.

You: One person cannot "treat the symptoms" is all I'm saying

Stranger: I rather think in part a sort of dependency and corruption has been encouraged in Africa by 1st world countries.

You: We're getting into broad sweeping economic solutions

You: again

Stranger: So that favourable arrangements can be made to extract what's valuable from them.

Stranger: Oh right sorry.

Stranger: Well, do you plan to be an aid worker?

You: Not in the least

You: ~ counterfactual reasoning

Stranger: Hmm?

You: i.e., lawyer working in a soup kitchen

Stranger: I wasn't reasoning there it was an unrelated question.

Stranger: What was it counterfactual reasoning to?

You: I did not mean you

You: I am not working in the aid industry

You: because of...

You: Many people assume that the best way to help people is through direct methods, such as working for a charity or providing social services,[29][30] but since charities and social-service providers usually can find people willing to work for them, effective altruists compare the amount of good somebody does in a conventional altruistic career to how much good would have been done had the next-best candidate been hired for the position. According to this reasoning, the impact of a career may be smaller than it appears.[31]

Stranger: Oh right.

Stranger: I'm not sure I follow that last point.

You: Not going into working as a low paying aid worker?

Stranger: Is the rationale here: Charities can always find people, and imagine the harm done if someone less competent than you gets that job?

Stranger: I didn't know they were low paid.

Stranger: Is that important to you?

You: Making 30-40k/year vs making 70k+/year?

Stranger: Hmm.

Stranger: I guess those people are sort of doing what they love.

Stranger: Generally speaking people compete more to do a job they enjoy and the pay's less.

You: Or just meaning well

Stranger: Hmm.

You: And you're right

You: Cold altruism versus empathy-based altruism

Stranger: And you want to be a lawyer?

You: No, that was just the archetype

You: I'm an electrical engineering student

You: But it really doesn't matter too much which high-income career one chooses

You: Unless they do not know what they want to do

Stranger: So you're an Effective Altruist?

You: Yes

Stranger: Is that a thing?

You: I mean

Stranger: I mean like a Humanist.

You: Basically

You: It's a small movement

You: Mostly just made up of utilitarian bent people

Stranger: Ah here's the counterfactual reasoning reference.

You: =)

Stranger: Oh and the career selection point.

Stranger: It's an interesting bent.

You: Yes, there is actually a talent-gap (they say)

Stranger: Why do you find it appealing?

You: I just started looking into how I as an individual could lessen poverty during high school

You: So this is a way that I can contribute

You: Giving part of my income to charities

You: A sacrifice that's not really a sacrifice

Stranger: Do you meet any nice people in the process?

You: Sure thing

You: There's a couchsurfing page

You: There's a lot of facebook groups

You: Some self-proclaimed "effective altruists" who aren't really effective altruists

You: If you want to meet nice people though, any sort of volunteering will do

Stranger: I'm sure.

Stranger: I had a look once.

Stranger: Surprisingly hard to just volunteer for things.

Stranger: Load of paper work these days.

You: I know right!

Stranger: In some cases I imagine it makes sense.

You: I used to volunteer for Habitat for Humanity

Stranger: But still.

Stranger: You wouldn't have thought it should be that hard to volunteer one's time.

You: But now they have corperate sponships where companies pay their employees to "volunteer"

Stranger: Lol...

Stranger: Well some harmless posing I suppose is inevitable.

You: Maybe it's just easier in large cities like Chicago

Stranger: What really pisses me off more is when "charitable" work is actually used as a cover.

Stranger: Or indeed a company which is inadvertantly causing the problem in a way most people don't spot then capitalises on the outcome / damage done in a show of "altruism".

Stranger: Or sometimes consciously.

Stranger: I'm pretty sure Goldman Sachs for example was sponsoring a study into bonded labour because they had some sort of contrary interest in a construction boom in India.

Stranger: Call me suspicious.

Stranger: But most people don't look too closely when someone is doing superficially good deeds.

You: I like that point

EA 11/26/17

You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!

Stranger's college: mit.edu

You: Hello, 23. Most interested in a dialogue about Effective Altruism with a focus on lessening absolute poverty

Stranger: WAIT

Stranger: HELLO THERE

Stranger: Fellow EA

You: ya?

Stranger: Development economics PhD

Stranger: Who are you

You: Electrical Engineering undergrad

You: near vegetarian

Stranger: Dang, I get on Omegle for the first time in months, and bump into a global poverty EA in less than two minutes.

Stranger: Same, same

Stranger: "Vegeflexible"

Stranger: So what's on your mind?

Stranger: I'm Nils, btw.

You: Adam

You: What do you think about AI risk?

Stranger: Nice to meet you, Adam

Stranger: I think it's probably very important, but it's also pretty far outside my wheelhouse, so I direct my energy at other things.

You: I probably think so too

You: I wouldn't want to fund it

Stranger: As an EE undergrad, you have time to switch tracks, though

You: I don't know why I'd want to go into CS

You: Damn, this is just so unexpected

You: Most people on Omegle confuse EA for regular altruism

Stranger: I do a dose of that too haha

You: And then go off about some political theory that has nothing to do with anything

You: So how is your lifestyle different from other college students?

Stranger: Hm. Not much different, to be honest. Somewhat more frugal. Less socialization.

You: Or what are some things that you believe that are different?

You: What makes you unique?

Stranger: I don't know of much about me that is both interesting and makes me unique.

You: Doesn't have to be interesting ;)

You: What's your dream job?

Stranger: Devo economist at an NGO, perhaps. Gates Foundation?

Stranger: Family lives in Seattle, so that would be nice.

Stranger: Less pressure than academia.

You: What's Devo mean?

Stranger: Development, sorry.

You: Oughhhh, ok ok

You: So I just gave a brief 20 min presentation about absolute poverty to my local Engineers Without Borders

Stranger: Nice! What were your main points?

You: I touched on the definition of extreme and relative poverty, and why that's meaningful. What the crowding out effect is related to philanthropy (and I should've made the explicit point why some donation just based on good intention could be bad). And what the poverty trap is in a nutshell

You: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:USAID_Projections.png

Stranger: I always say the most important things to know are 1. There's a lot of poverty and 2. It's getting better fast.

You: The 40% in 1990 going down to 20% in 2010 for extreme poverty

You: What other main points would you touch on?

Stranger: Hmmmm

Stranger: We don't know of any silver bullets

Stranger: Conflict is a major source of poverty

Stranger: It's strongly gendered – hits women and children harder

You: But I mean concepts, condensed ideas...ok

You: yes empowering women

Stranger: Employment is amazing if we can figure out how to create it

Stranger: Most "aid" is spent by developing country governments

Stranger: Overpopulation is probably not a first-order problem

Stranger: Corruption is probably not a first-order problem

You: What's a first-order problem?

Stranger: Oh, a "most important" problem

Stranger: Economese, sorry

Stranger: As opposed to a second-order problem which has a smaller marginal effect

Stranger: It's most important to identify and fix first-order problems

You: This is good stuff. I'm glad our paths crossed

Stranger: Likewise. :-)

Stranger: Diseases that stunt/cripple have a much higher burden than diseases that kill

Stranger: And diseases that kill very young or very old have a lower burden than those that kill young adults

You: Interesting interesting

Stranger: This is why malaria and HIV are much worse than cancer or influenza

You: Ohhh

You: Crap, this is really going to help me

You: I'm alone here in Platteville

Stranger: Yeah, Cambridge is one of the epicenters

Stranger: I'm lucky

You: So I'm interested in how to categorize people within a group

Stranger: What's the nearest EA hub?

You: Madison

You: But I'm never there long enough

You: Milwaukee too, same excuse

You: How would you categorize, into broad groups, members in your EA group?

Stranger: Hm

Stranger: Area of primary interest, and career type.

Stranger: Earning/research/other.

You: Aw, I was hoping for a category that was more scandalous

Stranger: Like?

You: Hmmm

You: something along the lines of certain people who don't really care I guess

Stranger: Virtue signallers?

You: In Engineers Without Borders there are people who just want to go on the trip abroad

Stranger: Oh, that's another categorization: utilitarians, deontologists, virtue ethicists, nihilists

You: damn, how many are there? in Cambridge

Stranger: EAs?

You: ya

Stranger: Maybe a few hundred who show up to one of the main groups regularly.

Stranger: There are about… five large groups?

You: Jesus

You: That's insane!

Stranger: Yeah. Here, SF, and Oxford are hotbeds.

You: How about extremists?

Stranger: I'm not sure I know any.

You: probably a subcategory of the utilitarians

You: To give you a picture, I've contemplated bank robbery

Stranger: I know people who engage in thought experiments along those lines, but nobody who actually acts on them.

You: What kind of thought experiments do you recall?

Stranger: Political assassination, targeted pandemics, eugenics

You: Wough

You: That's a little too extreme

You: I mean, even a utilitarianist still should value basic human right, such as life

You: But you haven't heard of some type of non-violent (no killing) bank robbery before?

Stranger: A utilitarian doesn't necessarily recognize "rights".

Stranger: I have.

You: I wouldn't call them rights either, but...eh...ok

You: So what did they conclude about the bank robbery or similar idea?

Stranger: Almost certainly a bad idea.

Stranger: Illegal actions have a huge number of downsides.

You: Besides getting caught?

Stranger: That should not be discounted, but yes. Erosion of social norms is a big one.

You: One bank robbery?

Stranger: Yes.

You: I supppppose you could take the slippery slope argument

Stranger: It has a marginal benefit and marginal cost.

Stranger: Also, the upside to bank robbery is terrible.

Stranger: The average haul is a couple thousand dollars if I remember correctly.

You: I mean, movie-like bank robbery

You: But yes, I know what you're talking about

You: Spy movie type

You: or something ingenious like Inside Man

You: (not like Hell or High Water)

You: sorry if that sounds confusing, bit of jumbled ideas

Stranger: Movie-bank robberies are very difficult to pull off

You: I realize

You: The more realistic "Hell or High Water" type robberies (small bills) would be the type with too much risk and not enough offset benefit

You: I mean the Mission Impossible type

You: Team of elite individuals

You: pooling their skills and expertise

Stranger: Yeah you're not going to succeed where career criminals have failed.

You: I don't know what you mean

You: I didn't say I have such elite skills

You: It would be strategic to plan something much later in one's life though. Lots of time to hone one of the needed skill sets

Stranger: How much do you expect a heist to take?

You: How much what?

Stranger: cash

You: I'm just talking, just like the crazy negative utilitarians have outlandish ideas.

You: Oh, pull in

You: I think that would depend on the type of heist, type of bank, location

You: Why, what do you think is the break-even point?

Stranger: I don't think there is one.

Stranger: A typical branch probably has like $10-20K

Stranger: And anything larger will get you caught

Stranger: You're better off just… working.

You: Well, even that--there are marked bills

You: And I think you bring up a really good point

You: Instead of honing one's skill-set in a particular area of the heist, they could just do freelance work (such as programming)

Stranger: Think of it this way

Stranger: If there were a break-even point, then criminal enterprises would do bank robberies

Stranger: They don't

You: I disagree

You: Criminal enterprises don't care about exploiting women, hurting other people

You: Robbing something with an elite team...agh, someday I hope an EA will indulge me with this idea

You: =)

Stranger: I don't understand. If they have no morals, doesn't think give them even more latitude for success?

Stranger: *this

You: Oh, back to why criminal organizations don't rob banks? They have their hands in far less rigorous dealings. Like I mentioned, elite team--what criminal organization has individuals they specially train or contract to do such jobs?

You: I presume selling drugs, with no super-specialized knowledge or experience, is a hell of a lot simpler than conducting a heist

Stranger: If there is profit in it, it should happen

Stranger: Unless you think there is a shortage of unscrupulous people

You: Tens of years of training and planning?

You: What criminal organization would think of that?

Stranger: One that thinks like you

You: Yes, but like I said, other dealings is much simpler to manage

You: If they were me, and I was you, and you were the other guy--they would still be into making money though all the much simpler, and quicker methods of illegal money making

You: human trafficking, prostitution, drug distribution, money laundering,etc

You: Specifically because they don't care about ethics or the suffering of other people--that's why they wouldn't try to pull something off that would not hurt anybody