[serious] Charity thread

[KrazyHorse]

Yes. Anyone who cares about the issue understands in some way that it's about some factors - not, all but some - most of them rather meaningful.

Another fuzzy-headed response. The fact is that local food, like the anti plastic bag movement, is just a fad, appealing to those of limited rationality. The attempt to dress it up as an intellectually consistent idea ends up at the point at which you admit that you just don't know what is more efficient to eat. Neither do I, and without market discipline, neither does anybody else.

[Aeson]

Anything which can't be measured is just filosofy.

What is the metric used for "****"?

[KrazyHorse]

Insert link to my intelligence thread here

[Ben Kenobi]

Hmm, lets see.

I tend to donate to a variety of prolife organisations and to the church collection. That's pretty much it. I also help out folks that I know who need a hand.

[Ecofarm]

you just don't know what is more efficient to eat. Neither do I, and without market discipline, neither does anybody else

One could go to school and base their assessment on economic, social and ecologic factors. One might also include spiritual impacts.

There are many ways to learn about what is efficient and not. Many factors, for examples: water, pesticides, fertilizers and runoff, cruelty, animal and plant diversity, soil, nutrients, slope, distance to market, land tenure, land ownership policy, antibiotics and hormones...

Much like politics, there are many issues that people might be more or less interested in. One of those things is local food. Now, noone in their right mind thinks that this trumps all other factors (that's Drake's invention, which you apparently support); nonetheless, all else being equal the closer food is more efficient. That's obvious to anyone. It's merely the factor of the week and only a complete imbecile could think it's the most important or (and this is just really absurd) the only important factor.

[Kidlicious]

I give to local charities like the community center and local schools.

RE: local food. It's obvious local is better except where it's much more expensive. In some cases expensive local food is even better.

[Kuciwalker]

There are many ways to learn about what is efficient and not. Many factors, for examples: water, pesticides, fertilizers and runoff, cruelty, animal and plant diversity, soil, nutrients, slope, distance to market, land tenure, land ownership policy, antibiotics and hormones...

This is exactly the point. Without aggregating all of those, you have no idea which is more efficient.

You don't get to just pick one and make your decisions based on it. That doesn't actually help.

nonetheless, all else being equal the closer food is more efficient.

All else is never equal.

[Ecofarm]

@Kid: And think globally.

You don't get to just pick one and make your decisions based on it.

And yet, there are one issue voters.

All else is never equal.

You got anything else, Socrates?

[Kuciwalker]

One issue voters can be efficient because individuals have different preferences. All of the externalities you mentioned (i.e. all factors besides taste and cost) are objective, with the possible exception of animal cruelty.

[giblets]

There are many ways to learn about what is efficient and not. Many factors, for examples: water, pesticides, fertilizers and runoff, cruelty, animal and plant diversity, soil, nutrients, slope, distance to market, land tenure, land ownership policy, antibiotics and hormones...

I will take all of this into account when I go grocery shopping.

[Ecofarm]

The quantification might be objective, like the distance or cost/mile, but the importance is subjective. For pretty much all of them. It depends on how "bad" one considers the particular impact. Effect is not objective, because we do not know all of it for sure.

[Kuciwalker]

The quantification might be objective, like the distance or cost/mile, but the importance is subjective.

No, it's not. The externalities are objective harm to other people. The entire point of externalities is that they are harms to someone else, which are the same regardless of who you are.

[Ecofarm]

How much, per ton, does carbon emission negatively impact someone... exactly ($/ton)?

What about sulfur hexafluoride?


How much, per ton, does fertilizer run-off impact nearby wetlands... exactly ($/ton).


Exactly what is the medical cost of antibiotic and hormone residue per person (diet adjusted, of course)?

[Kuciwalker]

The inability to precisely price an externality given limited information does not make it subjective.

[Ecofarm]

Well, if it was objective, I'd think we could precisely measure it.

Tell me, how much exactly does a pesticide residue impacting migratory butterflies negatively affect ecologies along their route? $/ton of residue, please. Let's be objective.



I think your objective, hard science needs a 'willingness to pay' survey.