Thank you for the data on the US government's pledge.
Any tips on how to encourage that without discouraging the intent on donating to any decent cause? I recall that most people are usually not on the donating business and therefore any donation to a decent cause might be better than, say, buying unnecesary fast-fashion clothing.
Thank you. It was simply a quick take to share my intuitions, comparing natural catastrophes between rich and poor countries. I don't have actual numbers around how far a dollar goes in situations like this, and I'm not confident that calculations on such sudden issues can be made that quickly. Do you have any data on the latter?
A bird's eye view on why donating to relieve the earthquake's damage to Venezuela is one of the best causes to donate to.
I have seen the photos, tens of complete buildings shattered to pieces, more than 150+ reported dead, and a lot more buried without clue to whether they're dead or alive, and on top of that, a poor, government in crisis country has to handle that. When a natural catastrophe happens to a country like that, your money goes a long way in saving lives.
I would like to point out that we don't really agree on all beings being equal. In the midst of the same article, some priorization in regards to beings actually took place, but was overlooked: human beings are more important than mosquitoes, and hence, investing resources for the killing of mosquitoes actually makes sense. (I actually was morally confused when donating to implement insect-killing bed nets, mainly because of my belief to abstain from killing living beings altogether. I understand that will sound weird, almost stupid and might even trigger some people here)
Right there is, in my view, evidence that we don't value all beings as equal. But I don't believe that to be a problem. I understand all beings equal in regards to simply being, existing, but not in regards to the actual consciousness of being happy, and I believe that's what might be unconsciously framing our decisions. Saving the life of a being that is actually capable of being happy, acting in connection to that happiness and mantaining it seems to be more convenient than saving the life of a being who is not capable. Saving a mosquitoe is less important than saving a human being, precisely because of this: no matter what you do, mosquitoes can ever hardly be happy, while human beings definitely can.
If we apply that principle to the more nuanced and reduced scope of the human realm, it also makes sense, and we might agree on the gross issues. Giving to a charity that actually knows about suffering and how to reduce it (on the side of that, a charity that knows about happiness) is better than giving to one that doesn't. However, when we apply that to individuals things might get fuzzier: if I say that giving food to a monk is better than giving it to a criminal, a lot of people will oppose me. But why? Generally speaking, aren't monks more capable of being happy than criminals? I believe it's not about living, but living happily, and some human beings are actually not that good in that, and not necessarily for external reasons.
Please don't take this as an excuse to not give to some human beings, that is not my intention. Give to the humans you feel most drawn to give (the warm fuzzies). Simply keep in mind that some humans will be better admins in their wellbeing, and that giving to them actually bears great fruit, but that it is definitely not defined by race, identitity or any external factor but by internal skillfulness in their capacity to be happy. Making a triage with this criteria might be at the edge of EA thinking imo.
Thank you for the data on the US government's pledge.
Any tips on how to encourage that without discouraging the intent on donating to any decent cause? I recall that most people are usually not on the donating business and therefore any donation to a decent cause might be better than, say, buying unnecesary fast-fashion clothing.
Thank you. It was simply a quick take to share my intuitions, comparing natural catastrophes between rich and poor countries. I don't have actual numbers around how far a dollar goes in situations like this, and I'm not confident that calculations on such sudden issues can be made that quickly. Do you have any data on the latter?
A bird's eye view on why donating to relieve the earthquake's damage to Venezuela is one of the best causes to donate to.
I have seen the photos, tens of complete buildings shattered to pieces, more than 150+ reported dead, and a lot more buried without clue to whether they're dead or alive, and on top of that, a poor, government in crisis country has to handle that. When a natural catastrophe happens to a country like that, your money goes a long way in saving lives.
Nice to know there are other meditation enthusiasts in EA. Concentration practice has been a really good finding in my meditation practice.
I would like to point out that we don't really agree on all beings being equal. In the midst of the same article, some priorization in regards to beings actually took place, but was overlooked: human beings are more important than mosquitoes, and hence, investing resources for the killing of mosquitoes actually makes sense. (I actually was morally confused when donating to implement insect-killing bed nets, mainly because of my belief to abstain from killing living beings altogether. I understand that will sound weird, almost stupid and might even trigger some people here)
Right there is, in my view, evidence that we don't value all beings as equal. But I don't believe that to be a problem. I understand all beings equal in regards to simply being, existing, but not in regards to the actual consciousness of being happy, and I believe that's what might be unconsciously framing our decisions. Saving the life of a being that is actually capable of being happy, acting in connection to that happiness and mantaining it seems to be more convenient than saving the life of a being who is not capable. Saving a mosquitoe is less important than saving a human being, precisely because of this: no matter what you do, mosquitoes can ever hardly be happy, while human beings definitely can.
If we apply that principle to the more nuanced and reduced scope of the human realm, it also makes sense, and we might agree on the gross issues. Giving to a charity that actually knows about suffering and how to reduce it (on the side of that, a charity that knows about happiness) is better than giving to one that doesn't. However, when we apply that to individuals things might get fuzzier: if I say that giving food to a monk is better than giving it to a criminal, a lot of people will oppose me. But why? Generally speaking, aren't monks more capable of being happy than criminals? I believe it's not about living, but living happily, and some human beings are actually not that good in that, and not necessarily for external reasons.
Please don't take this as an excuse to not give to some human beings, that is not my intention. Give to the humans you feel most drawn to give (the warm fuzzies). Simply keep in mind that some humans will be better admins in their wellbeing, and that giving to them actually bears great fruit, but that it is definitely not defined by race, identitity or any external factor but by internal skillfulness in their capacity to be happy. Making a triage with this criteria might be at the edge of EA thinking imo.