> I don’t object to them doing anything they want, but if you tag yourself as an “altruist” (effective or not) then other people’s opinions and perspectives are at the very core who you are (or pretend to be).
I don't understand that. You can eg measure relatively easily and relatively objectively how many people die from malaria and how many life years that cost.
Yes, but you can’t measure objectively the context around these people and what causes that to happen. Why do so many people die of malaria in certain places but not on others? That points to the fact that it is actually possible to avoid these deaths, with the right effort. Then you might be tempted to think: well they don’t have the money to handle it, or the know-how; then you send them money and you send them specialists and you realize it doesn’t change anything. At this point you might be thinking: if they get money and support to deal with the problem, why are they not doing it? Jumping from this to some sort of racist/Darwinist conclusion is then almost inevitable, if you are naive enough to think that the numbers explain everything. There is a very complex social-historical-cultural system of multiple intertwined factors that go way beyond the numbers when it comes to “altruism”. It is human. Relying on the numbers is just a way for people to a) think of themselves as better than other “non-effective” altruists, b) mask their prejudice with “it’s not me, it’s the numbers saying you’re inferior”, and c) to just circle jerk and find themselves two/three girlfriends at the same time. It’s not that different than right-wing ngo-hating bigots really.
For example, East Germany and North Korea had and have vastly inferior outcomes to West Germany and South Korea. No racism or darwinism required to see that.
I'm not sure why you are so confident that racist conclusions are inevitable? You also seem to suggest that the facts are racist, but that we have to blind our minds to that reality?
> [...] if you are naive enough to think that the numbers explain everything.
Our knowledge, including our quantitative knowledge, is very limited, but it is not zero either. There are some areas where numbers explain enough.
And, of course, just because numbers don't explain everything perfectly doesn't mean that our personal non-numeric pet theory is automatically any better.
1. I guess blaming the government is one alternative to blaming DNA, but what happens if the government changes and the problem remains? Over and over again?
2. You are the right, I can’t be sure that racist conclusions are inevitable, but that’s what I have experienced from people who fail to analyze the context with the numbers and to accept that a) you can’t explain everything and b) the numbers very often lie, are biased, manipulated, and/or simply incomplete.
3. The facts are not racist; your answer is exactly what I mean. You can’t get a causal conclusion from a post hoc analysis. Have you heard of eugenics?
I don't understand that. You can eg measure relatively easily and relatively objectively how many people die from malaria and how many life years that cost.