Scott creates a philosophical fiction where multiple characters named John Rawls explore the veil of ignorance through a drug that simulates living other people's lives, spiraling through nested realities until ending with a disturbing twist about karma and moral desert. Longer summary

This is a complex philosophical fiction exploring John Rawls' veil of ignorance concept through multiple characters all named John Rawls. The story follows John Rawls the Alcoholic through multiple layers of reality, starting with his rejection by a charity called the John Rawls Foundation that uses a drug to test whether poor people would help the rich if positions were reversed. The narrative spirals through nested drug-induced dreams, featuring encounters with a banker, a visionary, and eventually Brahma himself, who explains karma and reincarnation as mechanisms enforcing the golden rule. The story ends with a dark twist as the alcoholic character finds himself reborn as a factory-farmed chicken, suffering terribly while knowing he deserves it for his lack of compassion in previous lives. The piece uses nested narratives and recursive structure to explore questions of morality, reciprocity, and whether ethics require self-interest as motivation. Shorter summary

Scott analyzes why people support government-funded foreign aid instead of donating voluntarily, examining and critiquing several theories including virtue signaling, coordination problems, and time-inconsistent preferences. Longer summary

Scott examines why people support government-funded foreign aid rather than just donating directly, pushing back against the 'other people's money' argument. He considers and critiques several explanations: the force multiplier theory (seizing opponents' money), virtue signaling through voting, psychological free-riding on knowing problems are solved, coordination problems requiring bundling, transaction costs that make voluntary systems impractical, and time-inconsistent preferences where people's long-term values differ from their moment-to-moment impulses. Scott concludes by proposing a thought experiment where tax forms include an opt-out box for foreign aid, predicting most people wouldn't use it, suggesting the issue is more complex than simply wanting to spend others' money. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes Tyler Cowen and others for misrepresenting USAID's funding model, explaining how regranting through other charities is both necessary and effective despite seeming inefficient to outsiders. Longer summary

Scott Alexander criticizes a Marginal Revolution post by Tyler Cowen about USAID funding, where Cowen suggests that only 12% of funds go to recipients. Scott explains that this is misleading because USAID is not a direct charity but a funding organization that works through other charities. He details how the grant-making process works, defends the overhead costs, and points out that Cowen himself runs an organization (Mercatus Center) that does similar regranting. Scott particularly criticizes Trump and Rubio for misrepresenting these programs as wasteful, noting that programs like PEPFAR have saved millions of lives and have very low rates of unexplained expenses. Shorter summary

Scott reflects on how COVID-19's massive death toll of 1.2 million Americans has been overshadowed in public discourse by more controversial but less significant aspects of the pandemic. Longer summary

Five years after COVID-19, Scott Alexander reflects on how public discourse focuses on controversial aspects of the pandemic (lockdowns, masks, vaccines) while largely ignoring its staggering death toll of 1.2 million Americans. He points out this is the highest-fatality event in American history, surpassing the Civil War by 50%. Scott suggests this blind spot comes from two factors: dead people can't advocate for themselves, and controversy sells better than tragedy. He draws parallels with charity discourse, where controversial stories overshadow the actual lives saved. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques Lyman Stone's arguments against Effective Altruism, defending the movement's impact, methodology, and philosophical foundations. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Lyman Stone's critique of Effective Altruism (EA), addressing several key arguments. He points out flaws in Stone's methodology for evaluating EA's impact on charitable giving, explains why EA focuses on diverse causes, defends the value of research and white-collar work in philanthropy, argues against the suggestion of extreme measures like terrorism, and discusses the philosophical foundations of caring about animal welfare. Scott also refutes the claim that EA ideas are unoriginal, highlighting the movement's unique aspects and its role as a social technology for promoting altruistic behavior. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander introduces an impact market for unfunded ACX Grants proposals, allowing investors to crowdfund projects with potential returns in Manifund dollars. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the implementation of an impact market for ACX Grants proposals that were not initially funded. This market allows investors to crowdfund projects, with the potential to profit if the projects succeed. The post outlines the current state of the market, including challenges faced, and provides examples of available projects. It also explains the technical details of how the impact market works, potential risks and benefits for investors, and provides links for participation. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his capitalism vs charity post, clarifying his argument and addressing various counterpoints and suggested capitalist charities. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his previous post about capitalism and charity. He clarifies that he's discussing a specific near-mode situation of how to best use a limited amount of money for improving human welfare, not running a 'Moral Worth Tournament' between capitalism and charity. He addresses arguments for investing in capitalism over charity, discussing issues like compounding returns, marginal utility, and the eventual need for consumption. Scott also explores specific capitalist charities suggested by commenters, including charter cities and microfinance, noting the lack of strong empirical evidence for many of these interventions. He concludes by stating what kind of evidence would change his mind on this topic. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander compares the marginal impact of capitalism vs. charity, finding that traditional charity often seems more effective despite capitalism's historical success. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the question of whether capitalism is more effective than charity in helping others. He compares the impact of investing in a successful company like Instacart to donating to a highly effective charity like Dispensers For Safe Water. While acknowledging capitalism's overall historical success, Scott argues that at the margin, traditional charity often seems to have a greater direct impact. He examines potential second-order effects of capitalism but finds them insufficient to clearly outweigh charity's benefits. The post concludes by considering alternative capitalist-oriented charitable approaches, such as development aid or charter cities, but notes the lack of rigorous evaluation for these options. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander announces the 2024 ACX Grants program, detailing its structure, funding, and new optional 'impact market' component for charitable and scientific projects. Longer summary

Scott Alexander announces the 2024 ACX Grants program, a microgrants initiative to fund charitable or scientific projects. He explains the program's structure, including a partnership with Manifund, the funding amount ($320,000 total), timeline, application process, and types of projects likely to be funded. This year introduces an optional 'impact market' component, allowing unfunded projects to seek alternative funding through impact certificates. Scott also discusses the benefits of winning a grant beyond the monetary aspect and touches on tax implications. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends effective altruism against Freddie deBoer's criticism, arguing for its distinctiveness, practical value, and positive marginal effects. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Freddie deBoer's criticism of effective altruism (EA) as a 'shell game'. He argues that EA can be defined distinctly from universally-held beliefs, serves as a social technology to encourage charitable action, and is composed of valuable organizations. Scott also discusses the challenges of categorizing ideological movements, suggests judging movements by their marginal effects, and defends EA's focus on both widely accepted and more controversial causes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends effective altruism by highlighting its major accomplishments and arguing that its occasional missteps are outweighed by its positive impact on the world. Longer summary

Scott Alexander defends effective altruism (EA) against recent criticisms, highlighting its accomplishments in global health, animal welfare, AI safety, and other areas. He argues that EA has saved around 200,000 lives, equivalent to ending gun violence, curing AIDS, and preventing a 9/11-scale attack in the US. Scott contends that EA's achievements are often overlooked because they focus on less publicized causes, and that the movement's occasional missteps are minor compared to its positive impact. He emphasizes that EA is a coalition of people who care about logically analyzing important causes, whether broadly popular or not, and encourages readers to investigate and support the most beneficial causes. Shorter summary

A diverse collection of links and brief comments on recent developments in science, technology, politics, and society, ranging from climate change to AI developments to social experiments. Longer summary

This post is a collection of links and brief comments on various topics. It covers a wide range of subjects including climate change, AI developments, social experiments, scientific studies, political issues, and technological innovations. The author presents these topics with a mix of factual reporting, personal commentary, and sometimes humorous observations. The post touches on subjects like geoengineering, crypto for sex workers, AI art, fertility rates, dating apps, charity effectiveness, and many others. The author often provides links to original sources and sometimes offers his own analysis or opinion on the matters discussed. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends Effective Altruism by presenting it as a 'tower of assumptions,' arguing that critics often miss its core principles of systematic giving and maximizing impact. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses criticisms of Effective Altruism (EA), arguing that many critiques miss the core principles of the movement. He presents EA as a 'tower of assumptions,' where even if higher-level ideas are disputed, the fundamental concepts remain valid. The post starts with hypothetical responses to common EA criticisms, then explains the core of EA using the Drowning Child scenario. Scott emphasizes that even if specific EA ideas or institutions are criticized, the basic tenets of systematic giving and maximizing impact remain important. He concludes by asserting that personal moral obligation is the most crucial aspect of EA, beyond debates about the movement's status or specific strategies. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses the technical implementation details of impact markets for charity funding, exploring various options and challenges. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the technical implementation details of impact markets for charity funding. He discusses various options for structuring the market, pricing certificates, handling founder equity, and addressing legal and ethical concerns. The post examines different approaches to kickstarting such a market, considers potential investors and funders, and concludes with some hybrid design proposals to balance competing interests. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander shares his experiences and challenges in running a microgrants program, offering insights and advice for others considering similar initiatives. Longer summary

Scott Alexander recounts his experience running a microgrants program, detailing the challenges and complexities involved. He discusses the difficulty of evaluating grant proposals, relying on expert advisors, dealing with applicants' poor grant-writing skills, and navigating the moral dilemmas of effective altruism. Scott concludes by questioning whether running such a program is worthwhile for most people, suggesting alternatives like donating to established charities, and proposing a new impact certificate-based system for future grant-making. Shorter summary

The review analyzes Orwell's 'Down and Out in Paris and London', praising its vivid depictions of poverty while noting some limitations in perspective. Longer summary

This review analyzes George Orwell's 'Down and Out in Paris and London', a memoir of his experiences living in poverty in both cities. The reviewer praises Orwell's vivid descriptions and insights into the lives of the poor, while noting some limitations in Orwell's perspective. The book is divided into sections on Paris, where Orwell worked grueling jobs in restaurant kitchens, and London, where he lived as a tramp relying on shelters. The review highlights Orwell's observations on the psychological impacts of poverty, the failings of charity and welfare systems, and societal attitudes towards the poor. It also discusses how some aspects of poverty and homelessness have changed since Orwell's time. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander provides updates on coronavirus trends, discusses various pandemic-related topics, and analyzes different countries' responses and policy proposals. Longer summary

This blog post provides updates on various aspects of the coronavirus pandemic. It discusses the slowing growth rate of cases in many countries, the challenges of mail-in voting in the US, charity efforts, how different countries are responding to the crisis, economic analyses of lockdowns, some positive developments in the US response, and various other coronavirus-related topics. The post maintains a speculative and analytical tone, examining different perspectives on issues like immunity certificates, expert predictions, and controversies around ventilator donations. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on billionaire philanthropy, addressing criticisms while ultimately defending its net positive impact and arguing to protect the most effective charitable efforts. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his previous post about billionaire philanthropy. He addresses criticisms and counterarguments, providing further analysis on topics like the scale of billionaire donations compared to political spending, the democratic nature of philanthropy, tax deductibility, and potential downsides. While acknowledging some valid concerns, Scott ultimately defends the net positive impact of billionaire philanthropy, especially highlighting examples like the Gates Foundation's global health work. He argues that even if some billionaire philanthropy is problematic, the most effective charitable efforts are so valuable that they should be protected and encouraged. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues against criticism of billionaire philanthropy, citing its efficiency, positive impact, and ability to support important causes that governments often neglect. Longer summary

Scott Alexander argues against criticizing billionaire philanthropy, presenting several points: 1) Criticizing philanthropy more than luxury spending incentivizes the wrong behavior. 2) The potential good done by philanthropy outweighs concerns about inequality. 3) Billionaire donations often receive more scrutiny than praise. 4) Government spending is often less efficient and focused on important causes than private philanthropy. 5) Philanthropy can support pluralism and fund important work the government won't. 6) Centralized government control risks a single point of failure. He concludes that the immense good done by philanthropic efforts, such as saving millions of lives, outweighs concerns about democratic accountability or inequality. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews the EA Hotel, a project offering free accommodation to effective altruists in Blackpool, England, discussing its potential benefits and challenges. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews the EA Hotel, a project in Blackpool, England, offering free accommodation to effective altruists working on research projects. The hotel, purchased by Greg Colbourn, aims to provide a low-cost living environment for EA researchers, away from expensive cities like San Francisco. The post discusses the potential benefits of this model, including cost-effectiveness, community building, and freedom from financial pressures. It also addresses potential challenges such as vetting residents and maintaining productivity. Scott finds the project endearing and sees it as a possible model for a future with basic income, allowing people to live modestly while pursuing meaningful work in aligned communities. Shorter summary

A fictional G.K. Chesterton essay defends AI risk concerns against criticisms, arguing that seemingly fantastical ideas often become reality and that contemplating the infinite leads to practical progress. Longer summary

Scott Alexander presents a fictional essay in the style of G.K. Chesterton, responding to criticisms of AI risk concerns. The essay argues that dismissing AI risk as fantastical is shortsighted, drawing parallels to historical skepticism of now-realized technological advancements. It refutes arguments that AI risk believers neglect real-world problems, citing examples of their charitable work. The piece emphasizes the importance of contemplating the infinite for driving progress and solving practical problems, suggesting that AI, like other seemingly fantastical ideas, may well become reality. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that effective altruism should be wary of pursuing systemic change, as it risks wasting resources and alienating supporters. Longer summary

Scott Alexander expresses concerns about effective altruism focusing on systemic change rather than traditional charity. He argues that pursuing systemic change risks wasting resources on politically divisive issues, potentially making catastrophic errors, and alienating potential supporters. The post is structured as a dialogue between two viewpoints, followed by additional arguments. Scott concludes that effective altruism's focus on direct, quantifiable interventions is valuable and shouldn't be lost in pursuit of more politically charged systemic change. Shorter summary

Scott discusses the challenge of incorporating animal welfare into effective altruism, proposing a balanced approach to expand moral circles while preserving sanity. Longer summary

Scott reflects on a discussion with Buck about animal welfare in effective altruism. The argument suggests that if animals have non-zero moral value, their welfare should vastly outweigh human concerns due to their numbers. Scott acknowledges the logic but struggles with fully accepting it. He compares this to the process of widening circles of concern, from self to family to community to all humanity. Scott concludes that he, like most people, never fully completes this process of expanding concern. Instead, he proposes a meta-consistent approach of allocating some resources to each new circle of concern while reserving the rest for sanity, allowing him to accept the importance of animal welfare without completely abandoning human-focused causes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that donating 10% of income to effective charities is a more impactful way to do good than political activism, and recommends joining Giving What We Can. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the moral obligation to engage in politics and activism, comparing it to other forms of doing good, particularly charitable giving. He argues that while many feel pressured to be politically active, donating money to effective charities is often a more impactful way to help others. The post suggests that instead of feeling guilty for not doing enough, people should aim to give 10% of their income to charity as a reasonable and achievable goal. This standard, promoted by organizations like Giving What We Can, is presented as a balanced approach to making a positive difference without falling into despair or inaction. Scott concludes by recommending readers consider joining Giving What We Can. Shorter summary

Ozy argues for diversifying charitable donations, while Scott counters that focusing on the single most efficient charity at any given time is more effective. Longer summary

This post includes two perspectives on charity donation strategies. Ozy argues for diversification in charitable giving, comparing it to stock market investing. They suggest that a society of effective altruists would still support various charities due to uncertainty and the balance between high-risk/high-return and low-risk/low-return options. Scott disagrees, arguing that charity differs from stock investments due to the absence of diminishing returns in lives saved. He introduces concepts of disaster aversion and low-hanging fruit, concluding that at any given time, there is one most efficient charity to donate to based on current funding levels and marginal utility. Shorter summary