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
No comments:
Post a Comment