Question: In principle, the usual investment of funds in some projects is usually a big problem because the money often just disappears, and we see no results.

However, effective altruists want to see results. Their approach is criticized because it is extremely difficult or almost impossible to predict the results on several levels.

We have many examples of this. Suppose anti-mosquito nets are donated to overcome malaria, and the effectiveness of their use can be calculated. But they are also used for other purposes; for example, fishing in Africa, which pollutes the environment. That is, there are unforeseen consequences that could not be calculated.

Usually, people can calculate the consequences on one or at most two levels. If we are talking about more distant consequences, these must either be wise decisions or it all turns into hypotheses.

How important is it to move toward more advanced calculations: the second level of consequences, the third, the fourth?

Answer: I do not think it is necessary at all. After all, if we had vast resources and invested them for a long time, such plans would obviously be very helpful.

But we see that all our plans evaporate very quickly, and we have to look for something new. Or, on the contrary, there are such changes in science and technology that what we had high hopes for is completely ineffective today and we need other levels of development. I think this is not the way to approach the development process.

The strategy should be like running in spurts: once we have a small achievement, we make the next calculation; another small achievement, another calculation.
[331714]
From KabTV’s “Kabbalah Express” 6/30/24

Related Material:
The Psychology Of Altruism
“What Is The Definition Of Altruism?” (Quora)
Hope For Peace

Filed under: Crisis, Economy, Globalization | Add Comment →