Why do you say that? Supposing diminishing marginal returns for addition resources, I don’t see how you’re going to get around the QALY loss from killing the person.
“Killing people and taking their stuff” has a positive QALY per dollar. GiveWell should check it out.
The second sentence actually doesn’t follow from the first. Givewell investigating it has a negative expected value even if actually doing it (well) has positive value. Among other things it makes it harder for Robin Hoods to not get caught.
I can’t remember the article where this was stated, but we have instincts for morality because following them made our ancestors more successful. They’re their for our benefit, not each others’. It seemed to your ancestors that killing someone and taking their stuff would be a net benefit, and if they didn’t have a built-in aversion they’d do it, and they would likely get caught and punished.
Our ancestors generally divided the world into “those like us” and “those unlike us”. Killing “those unlike us” and taking their stuff was perfectly fine and even encouraged.
The boundary between “those like us” and “those unlike us” historically varied and has been drawn on the basis of family, tribe, state, religion, race, etc. etc.
This does not actually speak to the utility of such instincts to individuals. Rather, it indicates their utility the gene bundle, by increasing the genes’ probability of propagating. A tribe that stole from itself would not get very far through time.
The thought occurred to me whilst I was thinking about the allegation that America invaded Iraq in order to steal its oil. This would be trading lives for money, hence the comparison to efficient charities.
Doing some quick internet research, it seems that the gains from oil come nowhere near to even cancelling out the epic financial cost of the war. So the war was a bad idea even by the silly criteria in my original post.
Furthermore it seems that ethical investment is just as profitable as unethical investment. [1] [2] [3] (How can this be true!? Am I misreading these?) So in fact it turns out to be sort of hard to be a “reverse charity”.
Doing some quick internet research, it seems that the gains from oil come nowhere near to even cancelling out the epic financial cost of the war. So the war was a bad idea even by the silly criteria in my original post.
As I recall, the formulation was usually that it was American oil companies which were to blame. It’s true that the war has been epicly bad for America (what are we at now, a net total of $4t in costs?), but that’s not the same thing as showing it was bad for the oil companies (‘privatize the gains, socialize the losses’), and even if it was shown that ex post it has been a loss for the oil companies (they got shut out by the Kurds and Iraqi federal government, basically, didn’t they?), that doesn’t show that they weren’t expecting gains or were irrational in expecting gains.
As I recall, the formulation was usually that it was American oil companies which were to blame.
That depends on the people with whom you are discussing the issue. The kind of people who use the word geopolitics a lot usually say that it’s about more than the interest of the companies.
It’s also worth noting that the Iraq war did produce an immediate increase in the price of oil which increased the profits of the oil companies.
“Killing people and taking their stuff” has a positive QALY per dollar. GiveWell should check it out.
EDIT: I am, of course, joking. Although it is literally true that that ratio is positive.
Dubious. Did you factor in the resources wasted on police investigation, mourning etc? :-)
Why do you say that? Supposing diminishing marginal returns for addition resources, I don’t see how you’re going to get around the QALY loss from killing the person.
I assumed they would donate the stuff to a highly effective charity.
Not after taking into account practical considerations.
The second sentence actually doesn’t follow from the first. Givewell investigating it has a negative expected value even if actually doing it (well) has positive value. Among other things it makes it harder for Robin Hoods to not get caught.
I can’t remember the article where this was stated, but we have instincts for morality because following them made our ancestors more successful. They’re their for our benefit, not each others’. It seemed to your ancestors that killing someone and taking their stuff would be a net benefit, and if they didn’t have a built-in aversion they’d do it, and they would likely get caught and punished.
“Caught and punished” might be a too-modern take on the problem. I wonder if it’s more like “lead to an ongoing and expensive feud”.
I believe you’re thinking of the ethical injunction sequence. Specifically, the post ethical inhibitions.
Our ancestors generally divided the world into “those like us” and “those unlike us”. Killing “those unlike us” and taking their stuff was perfectly fine and even encouraged.
The boundary between “those like us” and “those unlike us” historically varied and has been drawn on the basis of family, tribe, state, religion, race, etc. etc.
This does not actually speak to the utility of such instincts to individuals. Rather, it indicates their utility the gene bundle, by increasing the genes’ probability of propagating. A tribe that stole from itself would not get very far through time.
Yeah, but group selection doesn’t make a very big difference, as discussed in The Tragedy of Group Selectionism.
Do you have a specific institution in mind which engages in that practice?
The thought occurred to me whilst I was thinking about the allegation that America invaded Iraq in order to steal its oil. This would be trading lives for money, hence the comparison to efficient charities.
Doing some quick internet research, it seems that the gains from oil come nowhere near to even cancelling out the epic financial cost of the war. So the war was a bad idea even by the silly criteria in my original post.
Furthermore it seems that ethical investment is just as profitable as unethical investment. [1] [2] [3] (How can this be true!? Am I misreading these?) So in fact it turns out to be sort of hard to be a “reverse charity”.
As I recall, the formulation was usually that it was American oil companies which were to blame. It’s true that the war has been epicly bad for America (what are we at now, a net total of $4t in costs?), but that’s not the same thing as showing it was bad for the oil companies (‘privatize the gains, socialize the losses’), and even if it was shown that ex post it has been a loss for the oil companies (they got shut out by the Kurds and Iraqi federal government, basically, didn’t they?), that doesn’t show that they weren’t expecting gains or were irrational in expecting gains.
That depends on the people with whom you are discussing the issue. The kind of people who use the word geopolitics a lot usually say that it’s about more than the interest of the companies.
It’s also worth noting that the Iraq war did produce an immediate increase in the price of oil which increased the profits of the oil companies.
Joking or not, this is not the sort of conversation we should be having.
Where better to say silly things than on an anonymous Web forum?
Just because it was better here than anywhere else doesn’t mean it is better here than nowhere.