![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thus spoke Bug
13 October 2024 13:03Identity politics sets economic inequality aside and creates different abstract categories of inequality to struggle over, while ignoring ecological sustainability.
I think I'm late to this party but I think I finally understand how patronizing it is for rich countries and wealthy people to talk about reducing emissions while poor countries are wondering where their next meal is coming from.
checkin' in here
16 December 2022 16:42Friday night! Weekend!
Ready for a fun night by myself, with no social plans until Sunday morning :-)
Wondering what my first new charity will be in January of 2023. I could keep piling into abortion aid. I want to do more about international poverty. And about criminal justice reform. Perhaps more cash to the state and local Green parties. Those five would be enough to chomp through my increased charity budget for 2023.
Doctors w/o Borders, Innocence Project, Indigenous Women Rising, plus the Greens
Ready for a fun night by myself, with no social plans until Sunday morning :-)
Wondering what my first new charity will be in January of 2023. I could keep piling into abortion aid. I want to do more about international poverty. And about criminal justice reform. Perhaps more cash to the state and local Green parties. Those five would be enough to chomp through my increased charity budget for 2023.
Doctors w/o Borders, Innocence Project, Indigenous Women Rising, plus the Greens
The problem with effective altruism (EA) like that of GiveWell goes further than the novelty problem. I do agree that charities should be graded on what they're actually accomplishing. But the focus of effective altruism appears to be on: saving the most lives at the least cost per life. I question whether this is the correct focus.
Current projections are that Africa is going to nearly quadruple its population during the 21st Century, from about 1 billion to about 4 billion. Africa is already the poorest continent, which is why so many EA proponents focus on it -- it needs the most help in saving lives, and you get the most bang for your buck in saving lives in Africa. But then what? You've saved all these lives and have now added to the overpopulation problem in Africa, and then even more people are living in poverty in Africa, adding to the global overpopulation problem, adding to the global inequality problem. And then if we were to somehow bring up all those 4 billion Africans to an EU/US standard of living, we're absolutely cooking the planet and wrecking its remaining biodiversity -- if such an expansion of living standards were even possible.
In my own analysis, the biggest problem the world faces is overpopulation, and I focus my charitable giving on providing contraception and abortion to those who want it but cannot afford it. I'm focusing on reducing births, not saving lives. For the good of us all, for the good of other species, for the good of the planet's ecology. Choosing the correct goal is more important than being "effective" at the incorrect goal.
So, first choose the best goal, then choose the best methods for achieving that goal. I don't care whether you call this effective altruism or something else. Calling yourself effective does not make it so. But do look at the effects your charity has on the world.
Current projections are that Africa is going to nearly quadruple its population during the 21st Century, from about 1 billion to about 4 billion. Africa is already the poorest continent, which is why so many EA proponents focus on it -- it needs the most help in saving lives, and you get the most bang for your buck in saving lives in Africa. But then what? You've saved all these lives and have now added to the overpopulation problem in Africa, and then even more people are living in poverty in Africa, adding to the global overpopulation problem, adding to the global inequality problem. And then if we were to somehow bring up all those 4 billion Africans to an EU/US standard of living, we're absolutely cooking the planet and wrecking its remaining biodiversity -- if such an expansion of living standards were even possible.
In my own analysis, the biggest problem the world faces is overpopulation, and I focus my charitable giving on providing contraception and abortion to those who want it but cannot afford it. I'm focusing on reducing births, not saving lives. For the good of us all, for the good of other species, for the good of the planet's ecology. Choosing the correct goal is more important than being "effective" at the incorrect goal.
So, first choose the best goal, then choose the best methods for achieving that goal. I don't care whether you call this effective altruism or something else. Calling yourself effective does not make it so. But do look at the effects your charity has on the world.
I read the Atlantic article “How San Francisco Became a Failed City” even though I disagree with the headline at the outset — how is it a failed city? It seems what the author describes are mainly problems affecting the entire country, but with an air of “how could this happen here, to me, to my own precious city”, along with some specific examples of how Democrats in SF have been unable to fix the problems — but as unable as anybody else anywhere else. Crime is up everywhere. Fentanyl deaths are up everywhere. The political class is out of touch everywhere, regardless of party. Every large city is hamstrung by zoning restrictions. Every large city has seen arrests go down after the GF protests and especially COVID as police quit and courts got backed up.
-----
In recent years when I've visited SF it has felt like a caricature of its supposedly progressive past -- mainly colonized by tech firms and their highly-paid staff, with its old legendary LGBT bars and bookstores steadily closing one-by-one, clinging to its annual kinky street festivals as though SF were still some sort of cultural touchstone for the radical left in the US.
But you can't be a cultural touchstone for the radical left when the average rent for a 2BR is over $3,200/month while the minimum wage is $16/hour -- people simply cannot afford to live there on a minimum wage job, it takes 200 hours to pay the monthly rent, not counting taxes.
In 1970, you could rent a 2BR in SF for $140/month, when the minimum wage was $1.65 -- 85 hours could pay the rent. The ratio of rent to minimum wage has gone up 135%.
Similar stories could be told about other large cities in the US, rents have increased so much faster than working class wages during my lifetime.
A radical left city would be doing something about this monstrous inequity. But instead we worship at the altar of property values and stock options -- whatever the tech workers are focused on.
-----
There's actually no state in the US where you can afford even a studio apartment on the state's minimum wage, assuming 30% of income going toward rent.
The closest you get is Arkansas, followed by New Mexico, then South Dakota -- mainly the emptier states. These aren't radical left states LOL, South Dakota doesn't even have an income tax. They just don't have crowded cities. The market hasn't bid up prices as high in those states.
To the extent we have a Left in the US anymore, it is either powerless or it doesn't give a shit about the working class and housing affordability. What could be more important to workers than the ability to pay your rent and have a place to live? Why don't Democrats do something about this? Because now the Democratic Party is run by people with graduate degrees who can afford the rent in big cities, and by billionaire donors who can live wherever the fuck they want. And these folks are way more concerned about identity politics and abortion rights and "saving democracy" than about making sure the people who work at Chipotle can afford to pay their rent.
-----
In recent years when I've visited SF it has felt like a caricature of its supposedly progressive past -- mainly colonized by tech firms and their highly-paid staff, with its old legendary LGBT bars and bookstores steadily closing one-by-one, clinging to its annual kinky street festivals as though SF were still some sort of cultural touchstone for the radical left in the US.
But you can't be a cultural touchstone for the radical left when the average rent for a 2BR is over $3,200/month while the minimum wage is $16/hour -- people simply cannot afford to live there on a minimum wage job, it takes 200 hours to pay the monthly rent, not counting taxes.
In 1970, you could rent a 2BR in SF for $140/month, when the minimum wage was $1.65 -- 85 hours could pay the rent. The ratio of rent to minimum wage has gone up 135%.
Similar stories could be told about other large cities in the US, rents have increased so much faster than working class wages during my lifetime.
A radical left city would be doing something about this monstrous inequity. But instead we worship at the altar of property values and stock options -- whatever the tech workers are focused on.
-----
There's actually no state in the US where you can afford even a studio apartment on the state's minimum wage, assuming 30% of income going toward rent.
The closest you get is Arkansas, followed by New Mexico, then South Dakota -- mainly the emptier states. These aren't radical left states LOL, South Dakota doesn't even have an income tax. They just don't have crowded cities. The market hasn't bid up prices as high in those states.
To the extent we have a Left in the US anymore, it is either powerless or it doesn't give a shit about the working class and housing affordability. What could be more important to workers than the ability to pay your rent and have a place to live? Why don't Democrats do something about this? Because now the Democratic Party is run by people with graduate degrees who can afford the rent in big cities, and by billionaire donors who can live wherever the fuck they want. And these folks are way more concerned about identity politics and abortion rights and "saving democracy" than about making sure the people who work at Chipotle can afford to pay their rent.
Long ago I read a book called How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World, and one of the author's points was that we waste a lot of time trying to influence collective action when we can often achieve results by acting unilaterally. Oh, it is still in print! From the first chapter of the Kindle sample:
"Hoping to be free, many people engage in continual social combat — joining movements, urging political action, writing letters to editors and Congressmen, trying to educate people. They hope that someday it will all prove to have been worthwhile.
But as the years go by they see little overall change. Small victories are won; defeats set them back. The world seems to continue on its path to wherever its going ... The plans, the movements, the crusades — none of these things has worked ... There must be a better way."
His punch line is that "Freedom is the opportunity to live your life as you want to live it." Basically, don't wait for everybody else, just be who you want to be, right now.
In my own life, for example, I didn't wait for gay sex to become legal, I didn't wait for polyamorous relationships to receive state recognition — I went ahead and lived my life. On the other hand, I work as a lawyer for the government, enforcing laws and drafting regulations. The anarchist lawyer, heh.
Many people took up this book as a sort of Libertarian Bible. But it could also be viewed as a Buddhist work, because one teaching of Buddhism is that you can only act within each moment, that all those thoughts bounding around your head about how to improve the universe are merely the product of your Ego ceaselessly babbling to itself about how important it is.
There's also this pop philosopy saying, "Be the change you want to see in the world."
But there's still the basic truth that many of our problems can only be solved via collective action. I cannot solve climate change on my own, absolutely cannot. But as an individual I cannot force collective action, I can only add one to it. Just as with a democratic election — I cannot chose the winner myself, I can only add one vote to a candidate's total, which rarely makes a difference in the outcome, especially with an Electoral College and gerrymandered legislative seats.
Another Buddhist teaching is that we cannot solve all of our problems, eventually we die and everything we love dies and everything we hate dies, and that's that. The next generation will have to figure things out for themselves, and they will fail also. But my Ego refuses to give up, heh.
"Hoping to be free, many people engage in continual social combat — joining movements, urging political action, writing letters to editors and Congressmen, trying to educate people. They hope that someday it will all prove to have been worthwhile.
But as the years go by they see little overall change. Small victories are won; defeats set them back. The world seems to continue on its path to wherever its going ... The plans, the movements, the crusades — none of these things has worked ... There must be a better way."
His punch line is that "Freedom is the opportunity to live your life as you want to live it." Basically, don't wait for everybody else, just be who you want to be, right now.
In my own life, for example, I didn't wait for gay sex to become legal, I didn't wait for polyamorous relationships to receive state recognition — I went ahead and lived my life. On the other hand, I work as a lawyer for the government, enforcing laws and drafting regulations. The anarchist lawyer, heh.
Many people took up this book as a sort of Libertarian Bible. But it could also be viewed as a Buddhist work, because one teaching of Buddhism is that you can only act within each moment, that all those thoughts bounding around your head about how to improve the universe are merely the product of your Ego ceaselessly babbling to itself about how important it is.
There's also this pop philosopy saying, "Be the change you want to see in the world."
But there's still the basic truth that many of our problems can only be solved via collective action. I cannot solve climate change on my own, absolutely cannot. But as an individual I cannot force collective action, I can only add one to it. Just as with a democratic election — I cannot chose the winner myself, I can only add one vote to a candidate's total, which rarely makes a difference in the outcome, especially with an Electoral College and gerrymandered legislative seats.
Another Buddhist teaching is that we cannot solve all of our problems, eventually we die and everything we love dies and everything we hate dies, and that's that. The next generation will have to figure things out for themselves, and they will fail also. But my Ego refuses to give up, heh.
