Requiring a donation to TLYCS then pitting you against Singer seems like the most set up for failure anyone has ever been in history, but good luck all the same!
I'm immediately confused by what a consequentialist like Singer (or myself) would make of a formulation like "fair share". I definitely believe that anybody in a position to be reading this comment would be a much more moral person if they replaced a chunk of their marginally pleasurable consumption with donation to the world's most effective charities. But I can't see at all how "fairness" would apply. "Fair" only makes sense to me with regard to a specific process being unbiased in the ways it purports to be unbiased: a tennis match becomes unfair if one player can arbitrarily decide which balls are in or out; it doesn't become unfair if one player has a stronger serve than the other.
"I definitely believe that anybody in a position to be reading this comment would be a much more moral person if they replaced a chunk of their marginally pleasurable consumption with donation to the world's most effective charities."
Malaria nets will increase the population in Africa, which is probably a net negative for world welfare.
Selfish consumption would at least not harm things.
Honestly, the two best things a successful rich person could do with their money is fund entrepreneurial investment and have more kids. The message we should give rich people who think they have too much money is to be more like Elon Musk, whose trying to radically advance engineering to the next level and has like ten IVF kids.
True fairness just means that people don't try to lie and cheat you. Complaining about the hand God or History dealt you is loser talk.
I doubt that will go over well with Bryan's crowd though.
Bryan's readers will surely be more than familiar with RIcardo's Law of comparative advantage. I imagine you'd agree with me that expansive genetic engineering for IQ and other beneficial psychological traits is one of the morally best things the current generation could possibly do, but I disagree with you that sub-geniuses being alive and healthy is a bad thing. Plus, the geniuses among them are the lowest-hanging fruit imaginable, as long as we have open borders ;-)
If we have Open Borders poor Africans will move here, become demographically dominant, and turn America into Africa.
Hive Mind means that comparative advantage doesn't actually apply. The negative externalities of the bottom can mean they have negative net value to the group.
There will be a dramatic reduction in productivity, stability, and even basic governance and safety, just as it is in Africa. It will bring an end to the kind of dynamic scientific advancement that might well one day lead to genetic engineering for IQ.
If you want to fix Africa, just fund scientific advancement directly. This doesn't even have to be charity, no doubt anyone that could figure out how to raise IQ would get richer. That's the only way to actually fix the problem.
If you don't feel you can contribute to that endeavor just do other things that make the west richer so that you can indirectly fund such endeavors and have more high IQ kids that might one day solve the problem.
According to the FAQ, your bid covers all 3 events, but can be out-bid between events. So if you had a successful bid for #1, you could still be outbid for the other 2 events. You won't know until the day of the event whether your bid was successful. At least that is how I read it.
Requiring a donation to TLYCS then pitting you against Singer seems like the most set up for failure anyone has ever been in history, but good luck all the same!
I'm immediately confused by what a consequentialist like Singer (or myself) would make of a formulation like "fair share". I definitely believe that anybody in a position to be reading this comment would be a much more moral person if they replaced a chunk of their marginally pleasurable consumption with donation to the world's most effective charities. But I can't see at all how "fairness" would apply. "Fair" only makes sense to me with regard to a specific process being unbiased in the ways it purports to be unbiased: a tennis match becomes unfair if one player can arbitrarily decide which balls are in or out; it doesn't become unfair if one player has a stronger serve than the other.
"I definitely believe that anybody in a position to be reading this comment would be a much more moral person if they replaced a chunk of their marginally pleasurable consumption with donation to the world's most effective charities."
Malaria nets will increase the population in Africa, which is probably a net negative for world welfare.
Selfish consumption would at least not harm things.
Honestly, the two best things a successful rich person could do with their money is fund entrepreneurial investment and have more kids. The message we should give rich people who think they have too much money is to be more like Elon Musk, whose trying to radically advance engineering to the next level and has like ten IVF kids.
True fairness just means that people don't try to lie and cheat you. Complaining about the hand God or History dealt you is loser talk.
I doubt that will go over well with Bryan's crowd though.
Bryan's readers will surely be more than familiar with RIcardo's Law of comparative advantage. I imagine you'd agree with me that expansive genetic engineering for IQ and other beneficial psychological traits is one of the morally best things the current generation could possibly do, but I disagree with you that sub-geniuses being alive and healthy is a bad thing. Plus, the geniuses among them are the lowest-hanging fruit imaginable, as long as we have open borders ;-)
If we have Open Borders poor Africans will move here, become demographically dominant, and turn America into Africa.
Hive Mind means that comparative advantage doesn't actually apply. The negative externalities of the bottom can mean they have negative net value to the group.
There will be a dramatic reduction in productivity, stability, and even basic governance and safety, just as it is in Africa. It will bring an end to the kind of dynamic scientific advancement that might well one day lead to genetic engineering for IQ.
If you want to fix Africa, just fund scientific advancement directly. This doesn't even have to be charity, no doubt anyone that could figure out how to raise IQ would get richer. That's the only way to actually fix the problem.
If you don't feel you can contribute to that endeavor just do other things that make the west richer so that you can indirectly fund such endeavors and have more high IQ kids that might one day solve the problem.
Neat! I live in europe so the times just dont work for me sadly
Wish these were at a reasonable time for Euro timezones
Does your one donation, if you win, allow you to access all three debates, or do you have to donate three separate times?
According to the FAQ, your bid covers all 3 events, but can be out-bid between events. So if you had a successful bid for #1, you could still be outbid for the other 2 events. You won't know until the day of the event whether your bid was successful. At least that is how I read it.