Your example about cell phones is a prisoner dilemma. The choice to continue using the cell phone has more utility for each individual participant if they are the only person who would stop using it. At the same time it there would be higher utility for everyone, if everyone would choose cooperate in the prisoner dilemma and stop using their cell phone.
Having a government legislate that everyone picks cooperate in a prisoners dilemma is a way to solve the prisoner dilemma.
Even if a person wants to do something about a problem, it’s often much more impactful to donate to an effective charity then to change personal behavior.
The recent founders pledge article on climate change that illustrates that principle for climate change. Animal Charity Evaluators might not be the most trustworthy source but when it comes to the numbers I see from EA’s the same principle seems true for that area as well.
Even if a person wants to do something about a problem, it’s often much more impactful to donate to an effective charity then to change personal behavior.
Not sure if you meant “then” or if it was a typo for “than”, but either way I have an observation:
One can do both things: donate to an effective charity and change personal behavior, no?
One example I like is: vegan lifestyle vs. vegan activism.
Activism is a lot more impactful than becoming vegan oneself. By far. Because of the potential amount of people reached, and because activism can make a dent in group behavior and culture. One could even theoretically participate in activism while not even being vegan… and have more impact than a non-activist vegan!
BUT… then I pictured a scenario: All of humankind participating in vegan activism, claiming we should stop animal exploitation… while at the same time everybody eats meat. That’s just a massive-scale bluff. Collective hipocrisy.
I think that example illustrates nicely the gap we need to bridge between large scale action and personal change. And this is why I believe it’s ideal to avoid comparisons between large scale actions and personal actions. I claim they can and should be simultaneous.
A key concept of effective altruism is that you don’t ask “what would be effective if everybody does it” but focus on tractability, neglectedness and importance when choosing your own actions.
Apart from that it’s a possible feature that everybody eats meat but it’s artifical grown meat for which no animal had to suffer. It’s one of the approaches that the EA’s I know in the field consider tractable.
Your example about cell phones is a prisoner dilemma. The choice to continue using the cell phone has more utility for each individual participant if they are the only person who would stop using it. At the same time it there would be higher utility for everyone, if everyone would choose cooperate in the prisoner dilemma and stop using their cell phone.
Having a government legislate that everyone picks cooperate in a prisoners dilemma is a way to solve the prisoner dilemma.
Even if a person wants to do something about a problem, it’s often much more impactful to donate to an effective charity then to change personal behavior.
The recent founders pledge article on climate change that illustrates that principle for climate change. Animal Charity Evaluators might not be the most trustworthy source but when it comes to the numbers I see from EA’s the same principle seems true for that area as well.
Not sure if you meant “then” or if it was a typo for “than”, but either way I have an observation:
One can do both things: donate to an effective charity and change personal behavior, no?
One example I like is: vegan lifestyle vs. vegan activism.
Activism is a lot more impactful than becoming vegan oneself. By far. Because of the potential amount of people reached, and because activism can make a dent in group behavior and culture. One could even theoretically participate in activism while not even being vegan… and have more impact than a non-activist vegan!
BUT… then I pictured a scenario: All of humankind participating in vegan activism, claiming we should stop animal exploitation… while at the same time everybody eats meat. That’s just a massive-scale bluff. Collective hipocrisy.
I think that example illustrates nicely the gap we need to bridge between large scale action and personal change. And this is why I believe it’s ideal to avoid comparisons between large scale actions and personal actions. I claim they can and should be simultaneous.
A key concept of effective altruism is that you don’t ask “what would be effective if everybody does it” but focus on tractability, neglectedness and importance when choosing your own actions.
Apart from that it’s a possible feature that everybody eats meat but it’s artifical grown meat for which no animal had to suffer. It’s one of the approaches that the EA’s I know in the field consider tractable.