Do you have a high estimation of any charity being able to convert money into, what, decriminalizing apostasy in some countries? What would be their method of operation?
I don’t know of any charity that does that. I suspect it’s not cost-effective. You don’t have to donate to a charity that helps with your problem. Donate to the one that does the most good for the least money.
If charities can’t help with the problems important to me, why would I give my money to charities? Even if they on the margin do good, if that’s only with issues I don’t care about much, it’s not worth the money.
Why would decriminalizing apostasy be particularly important to you? It’s something that happens to you, but if you’re just worrying about yourself, no charity will be cost-effective, and you should just worry about having fun.
I don’t understand what you’re saying. Suppose I was (hypothetically, counterfactually) in danger of legal persecution as an apostate. That danger would be in the way of my having fun. Then I would want being an apostate to be legalized. Whether I achieved that by donating to a charity or any other way is instrumental.
It’s incorrect that in general, donating to a charity is never useful to me personally. I have type 1 diabetes; I donated to the relevant Israeli charity, which lobbied the government, which included insulin pumps in the social security net (medications that every tax-payer has very cheap access to). I gained actual money compared to paying out of pocket for the pump (although I didn’t do that), and I gained fun (using a pump is much more fun than manual injections).
Or: someone donates to SI; this increases the chance of successful FAI takeoff; they go on to have fun forever instead of dying of old age.
If you could single-handedly legalize it, it would be a good idea, but you can’t. You might be able to help, so that you add a tiny probability of success, or a tiny decrease in the time necessary. Since you’re helping a lot of people, it makes a significant difference over all. If you’re only worried about one person, it’s not really worth doing.
In your personal example, multiply the amount you donated by the increase in probability in getting the insulin pump. The result is more than the total costs of the insulin pumps, but is it more than it costs for one?
If you’re only worried about one person, it’s not really worth doing.
If I estimated my chances of being executed due to such a law were significant, it might be worth it to pay for even a small increase in the probability of it being repealed.
In your personal example, multiply the amount you donated by the increase in probability in getting the insulin pump. The result is more than the total costs of the insulin pumps, but is it more than it costs for one?
I couldn’t afford to buy a pump privately before the law was changed. So the successful change in the law was for me mostly a change in quality of life rather than in ongoing expenses. It can make sense to pay for a small chance to improve quality of life sufficiently, because humans don’t have a single utility function convertible to dollars, they have many competing ones.
ETA: I agree purchasing small increments in probability of a large payoff is problematic. We could view it instead as a coordination problem: estimate how much donated money was needed in total, use pledges/precommitments from many donators, and have everyone donate if enough pledges are collected. Like a Kickstarter for not-for-profit missions.
If I estimated my chances of being executed due to such a law were significant, it might be worth it to pay for even a small increase in the probability of it being repealed.
You could probably reduce your chances more cost-effectively by fleeing the country or taking acting lessons.
I couldn’t afford to buy a pump privately before the law was changed.
You could gamble.
ETA: …
If you decide not to do it unless everyone pays, someone invariably will fail to pay. If you allow some people not to pay, everyone will want to be one of those people. If you just ask for people to pledge, everyone will just hope everyone else pledges.
It seems like the sort of thing a general human rights organization (Amnesty International? though I think they support prisoners more than trying to change laws) might take on.
Try to, yes, but what’s your estimation of their effectiveness in this regard?
To me it seems they can only rescue people from their local laws by making individual cases international celebrities, but this naturally limits the number of people they can rescue to the order of tens a year worldwide, which isn’t worth much.
For what it’s worth, Torture and Democracy has it that international surveillance has led to the development of no-marks torture. This seems like a real but modest victory.
Other than that, I don’t have a strong opinion. I think that anything which works to convince governments that they don’t have absolute ownership of “their” citizens helps.
No marks torture may be somewhat more expensive to research and apply. I doubt that it is expirentially better for the person tortured, or that the requirement reduces the amount of torture done. It is better if tortured people retain intact bodies, but probably only if they then have a higher chance of being set free, and I’m not sure that is the case.
The research on no marks torture has been done, so that’s a sunk cost. I’m not sure about an effect on the chances of being set free.
There’s a non-obvious cost to no marks torture—it’s confusing. Someone who’s been subject to it can be unsure that they were actually tortured, and the same goes for compatriots who are suspect they’ve been betrayed for no good reason.
Torture and Democracy is interesting but somewhat overwhelming. I got bogged down in the section on the development and spread of torture by electricity. I should probably just skip that section.
The ugliness (there was a fair amount about the sort of torture which mutilates as well as no marks torture) was definitely a factor, but throwing in a lot of boring detail was the deciding factor.
Do you have a high estimation of any charity being able to convert money into, what, decriminalizing apostasy in some countries? What would be their method of operation?
I don’t know of any charity that does that. I suspect it’s not cost-effective. You don’t have to donate to a charity that helps with your problem. Donate to the one that does the most good for the least money.
If charities can’t help with the problems important to me, why would I give my money to charities? Even if they on the margin do good, if that’s only with issues I don’t care about much, it’s not worth the money.
Why would decriminalizing apostasy be particularly important to you? It’s something that happens to you, but if you’re just worrying about yourself, no charity will be cost-effective, and you should just worry about having fun.
I don’t understand what you’re saying. Suppose I was (hypothetically, counterfactually) in danger of legal persecution as an apostate. That danger would be in the way of my having fun. Then I would want being an apostate to be legalized. Whether I achieved that by donating to a charity or any other way is instrumental.
It’s incorrect that in general, donating to a charity is never useful to me personally. I have type 1 diabetes; I donated to the relevant Israeli charity, which lobbied the government, which included insulin pumps in the social security net (medications that every tax-payer has very cheap access to). I gained actual money compared to paying out of pocket for the pump (although I didn’t do that), and I gained fun (using a pump is much more fun than manual injections).
Or: someone donates to SI; this increases the chance of successful FAI takeoff; they go on to have fun forever instead of dying of old age.
If you could single-handedly legalize it, it would be a good idea, but you can’t. You might be able to help, so that you add a tiny probability of success, or a tiny decrease in the time necessary. Since you’re helping a lot of people, it makes a significant difference over all. If you’re only worried about one person, it’s not really worth doing.
In your personal example, multiply the amount you donated by the increase in probability in getting the insulin pump. The result is more than the total costs of the insulin pumps, but is it more than it costs for one?
If I estimated my chances of being executed due to such a law were significant, it might be worth it to pay for even a small increase in the probability of it being repealed.
I couldn’t afford to buy a pump privately before the law was changed. So the successful change in the law was for me mostly a change in quality of life rather than in ongoing expenses. It can make sense to pay for a small chance to improve quality of life sufficiently, because humans don’t have a single utility function convertible to dollars, they have many competing ones.
ETA: I agree purchasing small increments in probability of a large payoff is problematic. We could view it instead as a coordination problem: estimate how much donated money was needed in total, use pledges/precommitments from many donators, and have everyone donate if enough pledges are collected. Like a Kickstarter for not-for-profit missions.
You could probably reduce your chances more cost-effectively by fleeing the country or taking acting lessons.
You could gamble.
If you decide not to do it unless everyone pays, someone invariably will fail to pay. If you allow some people not to pay, everyone will want to be one of those people. If you just ask for people to pledge, everyone will just hope everyone else pledges.
You seem to be right. I should rethink my position. I will update my reply later.
Actually, starting a lobby with the goal of legalizing apostasy sounds like a good idea...
It seems like the sort of thing a general human rights organization (Amnesty International? though I think they support prisoners more than trying to change laws) might take on.
Try to, yes, but what’s your estimation of their effectiveness in this regard?
To me it seems they can only rescue people from their local laws by making individual cases international celebrities, but this naturally limits the number of people they can rescue to the order of tens a year worldwide, which isn’t worth much.
For what it’s worth, Torture and Democracy has it that international surveillance has led to the development of no-marks torture. This seems like a real but modest victory.
Other than that, I don’t have a strong opinion. I think that anything which works to convince governments that they don’t have absolute ownership of “their” citizens helps.
No marks torture may be somewhat more expensive to research and apply. I doubt that it is expirentially better for the person tortured, or that the requirement reduces the amount of torture done. It is better if tortured people retain intact bodies, but probably only if they then have a higher chance of being set free, and I’m not sure that is the case.
The research on no marks torture has been done, so that’s a sunk cost. I’m not sure about an effect on the chances of being set free.
There’s a non-obvious cost to no marks torture—it’s confusing. Someone who’s been subject to it can be unsure that they were actually tortured, and the same goes for compatriots who are suspect they’ve been betrayed for no good reason.
Torture and Democracy is interesting but somewhat overwhelming. I got bogged down in the section on the development and spread of torture by electricity. I should probably just skip that section.
You mean in terms of Body Horror?
I don’t know what you mean.
I thought it got too ugly for you and you just gave up in disgust at the senseless brutality.
The ugliness (there was a fair amount about the sort of torture which mutilates as well as no marks torture) was definitely a factor, but throwing in a lot of boring detail was the deciding factor.