Devil’s Advocate says Hi. Also: Philanthropy & ERE.

[workathome]

Jacob saved me ~$80,000/year based on previous spending - so yeah, uh, about that money I owe you...

Also, last year I put 30k into Vanguard Charitable that will help some people as I carefully recommend donations over the next 10 or so years. I've also never donated money before, and just found ERE last year... so as you alluded, yo could probably take credit for a lot of indirect philanthropy as well.

[JasonR]

o

[Dragline]

Yes, but everything is possible with Tony Stark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtntTvuv8Aw

How do you think he got out of Plato's cave?

[Ego]

Here is an interesting article in The Philanthropist

http://www.thephilanthropist.ca/index.p ... ew/948/805

A few quotes:

Thoreau: "Philanthropy is a charity that hides a multitude of sins. The philanthropist too often surrounds mankind with the remembrance of his own castoff griefs as an atmosphere, and calls it sympathy”

Emerson: "few persons have any magnificence of nature to inspire enthusiasm, and philanthropies and charities have a certain air of quackery."

Glass: "appearances disguise a more insidious set of psychological dynamics: the rational manipulation of the other, the demand to be admired and loved, the view of the other as “fuel” or “supply” for egoistic needs."

[Devil's Advocate]

Right you are, Jenny. Lumping all philanthropy together, as I was doing, is absurd. I too was thinking, as you are, of base-level philanthropy, of the save-children-from-death variety, although I did not state it in those terms either in my posts here or, I suppose, even to myself (and used the children only as example). But I was and am quite clear that the it is the fact of children dying that raises that issue to a different pitch of urgency : and I will willingly, as you say, leave out less urgent forms of philanthropy from the definition of “core philanthropy”, if I may use that term.
. Although that, Jacob, will leave out the impact your writing has had (except perhaps indirectly). (Hate to have to keep on taking a less than gracious note with the hand that opens the door to the party floor, and especially hate the personal reference. But the former is the whole point of my being here with this persona, and the latter I’m taking just as example, as I do my own personal situation for that matter, in this discussion.) You’ve done a lot, and implicitly caused even more to be done, but none of that reaches out to that pitch (of, for instance, addressing literally starving children)—except perhaps, as I said, very indirectly, and incidentally.
. Jenny, I expect the ERE mind will merrily use the radioactive bite towards personal ends, with altruism as an after-thought, if that. By and large that would be my own approach, too. You say you’ll “work towards providing everyone with their basic needs”. Tall order, that, even with webbing coming out of your hands (or is it wrists?). If you really mean that, you’ll end up acting much as the comic strip hero did, in terms of being “unselfish”. But the question to ask is: are you really following that maxim (that is, ensure everyone gets the basics) with your current (non-super-)powers, today, now—to whatever extent you can? If you aren’t, then would you really do the other either? (Sorry to strike a personal note, but some things cannot be tackled only in the abstract. Hence my public airing of my own private situation and personal angst. Also, the license of my nick.)

Spartan Warrior, I must disagree squarely. No, the “global capitalist system” is not killing the babies. Hunger is, poverty is. Five thousand years ago, when we humans had no economic systems (except, perhaps, of very rudimentary kinds—and outside of Atlantis), those children still died (and in larger numbers than now). The global capitalist system is guilty, nevertheless, but not of killing those babies. What it is guilty of is not saving them despite having the wherewithal to (which is a different thing entirely from directly being guilty of killing them), because of selfishness, because of self-centeredness, because of myopia, whatever. Which is exactly what we ourselves are guilty of, and the whole point of my post. If you rant against this “system” (or if not rant, soberly but feelingly blame it), how can you then not blame and/or rant at your dressing-room mirror?

Scott, someone that is ERE “finds themselves in a prime position for that sort of charity work” only to the extent they have funds backing that endeavour (as Bill Gates does). You would not, I’m sure, have such deep admiration for Bill Gates if he did not have such deep pockets : there are a good many (too many?) of the shallow-pocketed full-time philanthropists already. For one thing, you wouldn’t have heard of him then—which of course is not a very relevant point at all, but still. For another, he would have been far less effective as a fund-raiser then : Warren Buffet may well not have even consented to see him at all. I think the key to what is admirable about Bill Gates (in addition to all you say), is the fact that he is doing what he is doing with his own money (his own money, by every definition of the term). Money he has earned, not money he has inherited, or money he has begged (although there’s a bit of that, too, but that seems all right given his huge personal contribution). Money that he could have done whatever he liked with (as we do ourselves with our money), and no one would have had any right at all to apportion blame. I do admire Bill Gates, very much indeed.

And yet even Bill Gates is far from the pinnacle of what one can be. Animal (why on earth that nick, by the way? living off the land, something like that?), you’ve raised this discussion to a different level altogether. Your biblical quote was truly beautiful. (And incidentally, it was interesting to learn the philological origin of the term “contributing one’s mite”.) What you say stands head over shoulders above anything anyone here has said. In a way what you say renders all other points of view irrelevant (or if not that, at least insignificant). Here we are, all looking at this from the outside, arguing about whether we should do this or that with our money, or how best to good, and so on. While Jesus has shown us a completely different way to look at this (and indeed to look at everything). How does all this affect our heart, our own inner selves, that is the key thing. Because ultimately, whether we feed zero children, or feed thousands, ultimately we all must bear our own cross. So easy, so very easy to forget that irrefutable fact. No amount of FI, and no amount of philanthropy, will stop us from “passing on” one day. Thank you for that insight.

As you say, Felix. We stand on even more shoulders than we at first realize. So perhaps we should (or “they” should, as the case may be) clamor for far less than what we think we’ve put on the table, as you seem to imply.

Ego, you’re right, you’re right, you’re right. What someone else thinks is bull. Certainly not the right reason to do things. I know that, and that knowledge has guided my life (at least the last few years of it). The only reason for my self-doubt was the thought of something more urgent that all our logic. But then, if we can only calm down a bit, de-frenzy a bit, we’ll realize that there’s an even bigger way to look at things : better than going by what others think, and better also than going by what we ourselves reason : as Animal has shown us, above. (And one needn’t be religious in the conventional sense of the term to see that.)
. That sort of philosophy carries the risk of degenerating to navel-gazing, though. On the other hand, if I choose to ogle my own navel with mine own eyes, why should another object, or even try to evaluate such action?

Jacob, absolutely. I wouldn’t normally dream of equating virtue (however defined) with money, but I suppose the philanthropy business had me blindsided by its urgency, still has to an extent. Your numbers I have no quarrel with. But my point all along was this, that there’s a sea difference between “helping” someone capable of reading what you write, and someone (to repeat myself) starving in some dark dank part of the world. But even there, there’s the indirect philanthropy that Workathome points out. So, point taken. Although not without reservations (which I’ve spelt out already).

Hello, Jason. You’ll have to be content with a smile you cannot see and a handshake you cannot feel as prize. But you’re mistaken, you know. Identity is never monotone, it is the aggregate of very many sub-identities (if I may use that term), unless one chooses to operate at far less than one’s full and complex potential (as many do, unfortunately, as regards themselves, and therefore as regards others). The Devil’s Advocate identity is a contrarian identity, while Retiree is very much part of the chorus here. They’re different from each other, think different things (or at least, think about them differently), and say different things. He who has created us both seeks through us both to learn more about himself, and in a deeper, quasi-religious sense of course we are the same, but here and now, as you see us, we are two very different people, two different identities (although not without some points of overlap). You evidently have studied a good deal of philosophy, and know far more of it than I do. Some of your references here frankly went above my head! Perhaps there is some philosophical “school” that takes this view of the Universe as a whole, as the sum total of us of us all?
. You’re right, of course, in what you say : that if we demand (if only of ourselves) that more be done “that others may live”, where do we stop? As long as we have a kidney left un-donated, we haven’t done enough. (Although taking things to some far extreme and then seeing the bizarreness of that extreme position, isn’t that straw-man territory? Because it seems absurd to go a full mile in one direction is no reason why we shouldn’t go any distance at all. There may be other reasons, good reasons, for not going, but this—that going the whole mile is absurd—isn’t one of them.)
. Think a moment. To use that line as justification for doing nothing at all (or close enough to nothing as to make no difference), isn’t that just a bit callous? I hold no gun to your head demanding you do more. Goes without saying. But does that thought not bother you even a bit?
. Mrs J. is quite right. First that, then the other. Actions that cancel one another out get us nowhere. But that—what she says to you—needn’t be any more than just a pause, and certainly not a stumbling block. Provided you do want to walk that way. And if you don’t, then what she says is a non sequitur. (On second thoughts, no, not quite. It’s still much better to “do no evil”, no matter what else you do or not do, however you define “good” and “evil”. "First, do no evil" is sound policy. Although that leaves open, wide open, totally open, the question of what, if anything, comes after that.)

[RealPerson]

I find it interesting that you know the level of charitable contributions of your banker friend. Unless you are his CPA or have audited his tax return at the IRS, you must have heard it from.....him.

The "look at me" approach to charity (your name of a building or mentioning that you spend 75% of your money on charity) has always struck me as just one more form of status. That type of person typically has a big ego. You can feed it by buying a Porsche, living in a McMansion, or having your name on a building. Alternatively, you can go around and tell people you are spending a large chunk of your money on charity, thereby implying you have much more money than you need. I know people who donate lots of time or money to charity, but never talk about it. They do good, but don't use that to build up their own egos. I would suggest those people are better candidates to be canonized than the ego types.

We all do things out to fulfill a physical or psychological need. Quiet charity fulfills a need to help your fellow man, which is very fulfilling. "Look at what a philantropist I am" charity (the Beverly Hills $1,000 a plate dinner party kind) serves a very different need. It's the status need. If you feel pressured to take part in that type of charity, it would be good to examine your own need for display of status or importance. I think that is why this type of charity is not prominently featured on these pages. ERE types simply aren't driven by public displays of status. If they were, they wouldn't be interested in ERE. Instead, they would be climbing the corporate ladder. Maybe they would be busy becoming a banker.

[jennypenny]

Jenny, I expect the ERE mind will merrily use the radioactive bite towards personal ends, with altruism as an after-thought, if that. By and large that would be my own approach, too. You say you’ll “work towards providing everyone with their basic needs”. Tall order, that, even with webbing coming out of your hands (or is it wrists?). If you really mean that, you’ll end up acting much as the comic strip hero did, in terms of being “unselfish”. But the question to ask is: are you really following that maxim (that is, ensure everyone gets the basics) with your current (non-super-)powers, today, now—to whatever extent you can? If you aren’t, then would you really do the other either? (Sorry to strike a personal note, but some things cannot be tackled only in the abstract. Hence my public airing of my own private situation and personal angst. Also, the license of my nick.)

Being at the other end of the ERE journey, I find that I have what I need. I can't think of much I would change about my own life with superpowers, so there's no reason not to do what I said I would do. (I'm assuming superhuman strength/health comes with the webs.)

[Spartan_Warrior]

No, the “global capitalist system” is not killing the babies.

Really? Seems to me there's no money to be made in solving world hunger, so it's not much of a priority compared to peddling iPods. The iPod makers get richer, everyone else around the world gets poorer and hungrier. Your solution to this would be to have me devote my life to inventing and selling more iPods?

how can you then not blame and/or rant at your dressing-room mirror?

Who said I don't! But maybe for different reasons.

Because based on the information I have, I believe commuting in my gas-engine, paying more taxes to the World's Greatest Baby Killers, making the 1% more astronomically rich off of my labor, encouraging the destructive consumption-based growth model, etc, does more harm than any good I could do with the paycheck that would result from my participation in that system. Granted, I'm no Bill Gates and probably never will be. I honestly believe the world would be a better place if my job, your banker's job, and 90% of all jobs didn't exist.

If I were to somehow come into more money than I actually need for my own livelihood, by a means that didn't perpetuate that system, I have already said I would donate it. If you believe your banker friend about his charity, you have to take me at my word on that one. Like Jenny said, when I have what I need, I'll need no more, and anything in excess I'll be free to give.

But I refuse to perpetuate the system merely for the purpose of earning more money than I need so I can give it to others. The fact that my participation in that system is of direct harm to myself as well is simply added disincentive. If that makes me a myopic selfish asshole as you seem to believe it does, fair enough. There are worse things to be. Like a banker.

I agree that this is hewing close to the "obligation to work" argument. At the end of the day, I don't agree that I have an obligation to work for anyone else's benefit, or even that working has a net benefit.

(Also strongly agree with RealPerson's last post regarding motivations and ego-driven charity.)

[jacob]

@DA - What if I wrote a best-selling book that prevented the demographic pressures that leads to starving babies being born in the first place thus alleviating suffering before it even happened. Would that count as philanthropy? How about just handing out free condoms everybody? How about inventing a virus that made 90% of the human population infertile? That would probably do more to fix this particular problem than any kind of food effort.

How do you rank philanthropic efforts?

How do you value direct effects (feeding a starving baby or paying to have it fed) vs indirect effects (telling people not to have babies if they can't afford them)?

It seems to me that rankings are very influenced by the typical political strategy of reacting rather than proacting.---That it's better to be seen as fixing a problem than preventing a problem. That sometimes politicians let preventable problems occur simply so that they can be seen fixing them.

[Seneca]

@DA - How about inventing a virus that made 90% of the human population infertile? That would probably do more to fix this particular problem than any kind of food effort.

Heh. Have you read Dan Brown's latest book, Inferno? It really did make me think about this.

I alluded to it in the GW thread, I'd argue one of the greatest successes of the industrial/oil era is in fact how many children we have saved. Infant mortality rates have plummeted worldwide.

http://www.pbs.org/fmc/timeline/dmortality.htm

[Scott 2]

So there are a few things I think Gates is doing that are impressive:


1. Developing real skill in the for profit arena, then using it to help

2. Use of an impact based approach to helping

3. The amplification of his help due to his wealth


1 and 2 are available to every person and easier when someone is ERE. They get at the major problems typically seen with charities.

[C40]

I find this pretty interesting. Definitions of Helping, Charity, and Philanthropy vary greatly.

We're talking about a perfect example: Feeding (for today) a starving baby that is hungry and will die soon (Devil's Advocates example)

Some will think this is a very good thing. Any reduction of discomfort or suffering for a human* is not just righteous, but doing so is the point of our lives. I'd guess that nearly everyone in this category is a FEELING Myers Briggs type (xxFx). Good on a personal level is ideal. It doesn't matter what is happening with the entire world - making one person's life better right now is doing good.

Others (Myers Briggs THINKING types - xxTx) see the same situation, the person running around feeding starving babies, and see wasted effort. They see starving babies as a symptom of other problems, and may even think that feeding the currently starving babies will only allow the causal issues to result in even MORE starving babies and an overall negative effect. These folks have a different viewpoint - much less concerned about individuals and this very moment - more concerned about complete systems and the long run. A single starving baby 5,000 miles has no impact on the grand scheme of things and thus doesn't really matter. The causes of our current situation (A billion starving people?**) are what must be addressed to cause actual improvement in the long run, to improve the human race, to improve the earth.

Jacob's examples in his latest post are a great illustration of the different thinking about possible ways to prevent the existence of starving babies (or the fact that they are starving). The Thinkers are ok, and the Feelers are ok. The world would be a terrible place if everyone was a Feeler or if everyone was a Thinker.

*or for some, maybe dogs, maybe cats. But certainly not a squirrel or fish
** and anyways, why do many people have more empathy for a starving baby than starving teens or adults?

[Seneca]

** and anyways, why do many people have more empathy for a starving baby than starving teens or adults?

A local radio station had read an article like this and decided to do a bit testing this moral dilemma with callers who were to choose to save a dog or an adult from a speeding bus. A whole lot of people chose the dog and then sort of mumbled about why, usually saying the adult should've known better or saved themself...I was shocked, and so were the DJs.

Also, babies in need are amazingly pathetic. They tug at something primal, lots of studies about how their face shape engenders certain feelings, crying is tuned to just the right freqs in your hearing range to get results, etc etc.

[jacob]

@Seneca - No I haven't read it.

The greatest success of industry and cheap energy turning chemicals into lots of food and as a result lots of humans will also be one of its greatest tragedies on the other side when/if the bubble pops. Human population literally varies with our immediate ability to produce food. Humans = food! We are literally made out of food. Our population numbers vary in direct proportion to global food production. There's practically zero food storage on the planet (other than what's immediately in the "pipelines", i.e., store shelves, ships, and trucks) and humans only last about three weeks without it.

[Seneca]

@Seneca - No I haven't read it.

I got it as some light reading, and was surprised it had such an interesting moral dilemma as the core theme. He never really chose for you either.

The greatest success of industry and cheap energy turning chemicals into lots of food and as a result lots of humans will also be one of its greatest tragedies on the other side when/if the bubble pops. Human population literally varies with our immediate ability to produce food. Humans = food! We are literally made out of food. Our population numbers vary in direct proportion to global food production. There's practically zero food storage on the planet (other than what's immediately in the "pipelines", i.e., store shelves, ships, and trucks) and humans only last about three weeks without it.

Exactly. So, is the party worth the potential hangover?

For me, yes.

[jennypenny]

** and anyways, why do many people have more empathy for a starving baby than starving teens or adults?

Because they can't go get a job or ask for help or start a garden or even make themselves a sandwich.

Does everyone really think the only problem in this world is too many babies? That if a sudden pandemic or infertility virus hit, most problems would be solved and philanthropy would be unnecessary? It would explain why many people here seem equate going child-free with philanthropy.

[Seneca]

Does everyone really think the only problem in this world is too many babies? That if a sudden pandemic or infertility virus hit, most problems would be solved and philanthropy would be unnecessary? It would explain why many people here seem equate going child-free with philanthropy.

Dan Brown presents it slowly in Inferno, and sort of sneakily...but if you believe the population is unsustainable, would not a "sterilization virus", before we run out of resources and war over them is global, be about the most humane way to solve the problem?

[jacob]

Does everyone really think the only problem in this world is too many babies?

No, but too many babies, which eventually turn into too many adults, greatly complicate a host of other problems making solutions much harder or impossible.

Given limited resources, there's a trade off between the population size and the quality of life it enjoys. Every time you increase population, you decrease the sum quality of life. Perhaps not within a given nation or during a short time span, but within the whole planet and in the long run.

Prioritizing one is thus not exclusively preferable to the other. Every time you take a resource, it has to come from somewhere else. Saving babies increases competition leaving less for everybody else. Since babies don't compete well, saving babies now means that future babies will suffer that much worse.

As mentioned above, humans are very much hardwired to focus on increasing population. This is great when the population is small which it has been throughout human existence save the past 100ish years. A full 7+ billion people is too much though. There aren't enough resources to go around so we start fighting for them. We have winners and losers now. It's a zero-sum game. We have a tragedy of the commons.

The commons are typically saved by restricting one's impact to oneself by privatization thus making actions costly. Without privatizations the externals (everybody else pays). This is being done with property (grazing rights) and pollution. At one point it will have to be done with procreation too. It will ultimately have to be a moral decision, a legal decision, an epidemic, or a possibly war to be fought.

This is why some (a few) have now chosen to volunteer for the moral decision.

[Seneca]

The externalities are the discussion.

http://www.thebigquestions.com/2011/10/ ... n-billion/

The debate being what is the right number. Does more people in fact change the carrying ability of the earth?

Here's the economist above with some fancy maths on the topic- http://www.landsburg.com/pop.pdf

[jennypenny]

This is why some (a few) have now chosen to volunteer for the moral decision.

Sticking with philanthropy...

So does that elevate it to the level of philanthropy? Are all moral decisions philanthropic? How about not driving a car? Or not littering?

Does 'not' doing something count as philanthropy?