The book blurbs aren’t raising novel points, and reviews of the book indicate that it doesn’t do so either. It also takes one viewpoint in a field where intellectual opinion is diverse. It’s questionable whether this is on-topic, but if you do want to inform discussions of altruism with relevant literatures, then I would advise linking to a representative sample of the existing work (which includes strong popular books like Sach’s and Easterly’s if you don’t just want to link academic work) instead of the blurb for a single unrepresentative book that you haven’t read.
I wouldn’t veto the general topic, but I would rather see some of the data that this conclusion is based on, rather than just general conclusions someone draws, especially when so may draw such different conclusions.
The book blurbs aren’t raising novel points, and reviews of the book indicate that it doesn’t do so either. It also takes one viewpoint in a field where intellectual opinion is diverse. It’s questionable whether this is on-topic, but if you do want to inform discussions of altruism with relevant literatures, then I would advise linking to a representative sample of the existing work (which includes strong popular books like Sach’s and Easterly’s if you don’t just want to link academic work) instead of the blurb for a single unrepresentative book that you haven’t read.
I wouldn’t veto the general topic, but I would rather see some of the data that this conclusion is based on, rather than just general conclusions someone draws, especially when so may draw such different conclusions.