5 ms·

I have heard similar restaurant stories happen to some of my friends. Jonathan's card is also a good idea. However, I can't help wondering that with all this t

I have heard similar restaurant stories happen to some of my friends. Jonathan's card is also a good idea. However, I can't help wondering that with all this technology we are ending up in a situation where the Haves help the Haves and they all feel better for a little while. What can we do to make it easy to help the really needy? Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could just as easily drop $10 to help someone eat a few meals a day? I am aware of all the real world problems and constraints, but I hope these examples inspire some of HN community to build stuff that will help those that really need it.

laurenkuhlman 15y ago
Text MEALS to 90999 to give $5 to the Chicago Food Depository. I do it quite frequently when some joyous happenstance comes my way or when I spend a bit too much on myself.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- YetAnotherAlias 15y ago
  Good tip.
hugh3 15y ago
The good thing about random altruism, i.e. giving stuff to people regardless of whether they need it or not, is that it doesn't encourage welfare dependency. When you give free stuff to "those in need", you have to be extremely careful not to just wind up changing the balance of incentives in a way that just encourages them to stay "in need". Otherwise you're harming them, not helping them.
- Psyonic 15y ago
  I feel like random altruism makes us feel good while probably doing very little actual good. As the OP said, it's haves giving to haves.
  - hugh3 15y ago
    As a have, I'm cool with this.
- patrickyeon 15y ago
  I think what the grandfather post meant was that Jonathan's card is meant to be scanned from a cell phone. If things like this are restricted to people with a cell phone (or a facebook account, or an iphone app...), the system selects for beneficiaries who are already above a certain level of need.
- masterzora 15y ago
  At the same time, if a few people riding the system that way is the price you have to pay to help the people who truly need it, isn't it really worth it?
Eliezer 15y ago
http://xkcd.com/871/ http://xkcd.com/871/ and http://lesswrong.com/lw/6z/purchase_fuzzies_and_utilons_separately/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/6z/purchase_fuzzies_and_utilons_sepa... This is an efficient way of buying fuzzies, for a really cheap price, and it's important to buy fuzzies or you start to fade. If you want to buy utilons, find a maximally effective charity (this means you either check Givewell or pick your favorite existential risk reduction org) and donate more than $10. Do not confuse the two problems, and do not attempt to solve them both at the same time!
- YetAnotherAlias 15y ago
  Interesting links and comments. I did not want this discussion to morph too much in to an argument about economics and/or politics. That's why I glossed over them saying "I am aware of all the real world problems and constraints". patrickyeon captured my thoughts well with his comments below about how the system was selecting beneficiaries. That's the point I was trying to highlight.

laurenkuhlman 15y ago

Text MEALS to 90999 to give $5 to the Chicago Food Depository. I do it quite frequently when some joyous happenstance comes my way or when I spend a bit too much on myself.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
YetAnotherAlias 15y ago
Good tip.

hugh3 15y ago

The good thing about random altruism, i.e. giving stuff to people regardless of whether they need it or not, is that it doesn't encourage welfare dependency. When you give free stuff to "those in need", you have to be extremely careful not to just wind up changing the balance of incentives in a way that just encourages them to stay "in need". Otherwise you're harming them, not helping them.

Psyonic 15y ago
I feel like random altruism makes us feel good while probably doing very little actual good. As the OP said, it's haves giving to haves.
- hugh3 15y ago
  As a have, I'm cool with this.
patrickyeon 15y ago
I think what the grandfather post meant was that Jonathan's card is meant to be scanned from a cell phone. If things like this are restricted to people with a cell phone (or a facebook account, or an iphone app...), the system selects for beneficiaries who are already above a certain level of need.
masterzora 15y ago
At the same time, if a few people riding the system that way is the price you have to pay to help the people who truly need it, isn't it really worth it?

Eliezer 15y ago

http://xkcd.com/871/ http://xkcd.com/871/ and http://lesswrong.com/lw/6z/purchase_fuzzies_and_utilons_separately/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/6z/purchase_fuzzies_and_utilons_sepa... This is an efficient way of buying fuzzies, for a really cheap price, and it's important to buy fuzzies or you start to fade. If you want to buy utilons, find a maximally effective charity (this means you either check Givewell or pick your favorite existential risk reduction org) and donate more than $10. Do not confuse the two problems, and do not attempt to solve them both at the same time!

YetAnotherAlias 15y ago
Interesting links and comments. I did not want this discussion to morph too much in to an argument about economics and/or politics. That's why I glossed over them saying "I am aware of all the real world problems and constraints". patrickyeon captured my thoughts well with his comments below about how the system was selecting beneficiaries. That's the point I was trying to highlight.