I won't tire you again with my views about effective altruism and its unfortunate but inevitable progression to long-termism, except to note that philosophers who have the courage of their convictions, who ruthlessly follow their premises to their logical conclusion always seem to arrive at the wrong destination. And this is true not only of moral and ethical philosophy, but also topics like epistemology.
Instead, I'd like to spare a moment for effective self-interest; which is to say, it is somewhat shocking how much self-interest is ineffective. Please allow me to quote from Timothy Snyder's substack today:
"Americans (and many others) owe Ukrainians a huge debt of gratitude for their resistance to Russian aggression. For some mixture of reasons, we have difficulty acknowledging this. To do so, we have to find the words. Seven that might help are: security, freedom, democracy, courage, pluralism, perseverance, and generosity.
Perhaps the most important and the most unacknowledged debt is security. Ukrainian resistance to Russia has vastly reduced the chances of major armed conflict elsewhere, and thus significantly reduced the chances of a nuclear war. "
[...]
"By choosing to resist invasion in the name of freedom, Ukrainians have reminded us [that freedom depends upon an ethical commitment to a different and better world]. And in doing so, they have offered us many interesting thoughts about what freedom might be. Volodymyr Zelens'kyi, for example, makes the interesting point that freedom and security tend to work together. Throughout this war, speaking to Ukrainians, I have been struck that they define freedom as a positive project, as a way of being in the world, a richness of the future. Freedom doesn't just mean overcoming the Russians; it means creating better and more interesting lives and a better and more interesting country."
Irwin: Agree, but I'd (self-servingly perhaps) give the World Bank more credit than the others for _persuading_ Finance Ministers and central bankers to undertake unilateral trade reforms. I'll even gripe that the IMF by placing more emphasis on fiscal adjustment than exchange rate adjustment reinforced protectionism. And the less than stelar results of trade liberalization lie with the failure to increase domestic savings concomitantly.
Somehow this is parallel to the also correct claim that most of the disruption of developed country manufacturing employment resulted from technology, not trade liberalization.
Wolfe: Britain suffers from nostalgia for the _wrong_ grandeur: Empire rather than the Chrystal Palace London. [And _I_ do not believe that resources extorted from the Empire were necessary for the the Chrystal Palace even if people at the time did.]
MacAskil: # 3 and #5 seem quite similar and #1 is not too dissimilar.
And how different in implication is "What We Owe the Future" from "Stubborn Attachments" in practical implication (he lazily asks, not having read either book).
I won't tire you again with my views about effective altruism and its unfortunate but inevitable progression to long-termism, except to note that philosophers who have the courage of their convictions, who ruthlessly follow their premises to their logical conclusion always seem to arrive at the wrong destination. And this is true not only of moral and ethical philosophy, but also topics like epistemology.
Instead, I'd like to spare a moment for effective self-interest; which is to say, it is somewhat shocking how much self-interest is ineffective. Please allow me to quote from Timothy Snyder's substack today:
"Americans (and many others) owe Ukrainians a huge debt of gratitude for their resistance to Russian aggression. For some mixture of reasons, we have difficulty acknowledging this. To do so, we have to find the words. Seven that might help are: security, freedom, democracy, courage, pluralism, perseverance, and generosity.
Perhaps the most important and the most unacknowledged debt is security. Ukrainian resistance to Russia has vastly reduced the chances of major armed conflict elsewhere, and thus significantly reduced the chances of a nuclear war. "
[...]
"By choosing to resist invasion in the name of freedom, Ukrainians have reminded us [that freedom depends upon an ethical commitment to a different and better world]. And in doing so, they have offered us many interesting thoughts about what freedom might be. Volodymyr Zelens'kyi, for example, makes the interesting point that freedom and security tend to work together. Throughout this war, speaking to Ukrainians, I have been struck that they define freedom as a positive project, as a way of being in the world, a richness of the future. Freedom doesn't just mean overcoming the Russians; it means creating better and more interesting lives and a better and more interesting country."
My reflexive answer to “what’s the matter with ... ?” Is “HES A BUM “because sports
Irwin: Agree, but I'd (self-servingly perhaps) give the World Bank more credit than the others for _persuading_ Finance Ministers and central bankers to undertake unilateral trade reforms. I'll even gripe that the IMF by placing more emphasis on fiscal adjustment than exchange rate adjustment reinforced protectionism. And the less than stelar results of trade liberalization lie with the failure to increase domestic savings concomitantly.
Somehow this is parallel to the also correct claim that most of the disruption of developed country manufacturing employment resulted from technology, not trade liberalization.
Wolfe: Britain suffers from nostalgia for the _wrong_ grandeur: Empire rather than the Chrystal Palace London. [And _I_ do not believe that resources extorted from the Empire were necessary for the the Chrystal Palace even if people at the time did.]
MacAskil: # 3 and #5 seem quite similar and #1 is not too dissimilar.
And how different in implication is "What We Owe the Future" from "Stubborn Attachments" in practical implication (he lazily asks, not having read either book).
Mahan was right. Shows the importance of sea power.