RESUMEN

Intergenerational justice entitles the maximum retention of Earth's biodiversity. The 2022 United Nations COP 15, "Ecological Civilisation: Building a Shared Future for All Life on Earth", is committed to protecting 30% of Earth's terrestrial environments and, through COP 28, to mitigate the effects of the climate catastrophe on the biosphere. We focused this review on three core themes: the need and potential of reproduction biotechnologies, biobanks, and conservation breeding programs (RBCs) to satisfy sustainability goals; the technical state and current application of RBCs; and how to achieve the future potentials of RBCs in a rapidly evolving environmental and cultural landscape. RBCs include the hormonal stimulation of reproduction, the collection and storage of sperm and oocytes, and artificial fertilisation. Emerging technologies promise the perpetuation of species solely from biobanked biomaterials stored for perpetuity. Despite significant global declines and extinctions of amphibians, and predictions of a disastrous future for most biodiversity, practical support for amphibian RBCs remains limited mainly to a few limited projects in wealthy Western countries. We discuss the potential of amphibian RBCs to perpetuate amphibian diversity and prevent extinctions within multipolar geopolitical, cultural, and economic frameworks. We argue that a democratic, globally inclusive organisation is needed to focus RBCs on regions with the highest amphibian diversity. Prioritisation should include regional and international collaborations, community engagement, and support for RBC facilities ranging from zoos and other institutions to those of private carers. We tabulate a standard terminology for field programs associated with RBCs for publication and media consistency.

RESUMEN

In a challenge trial, research subjects are purposefully exposed to some pathogen in a controlled setting, in order to test the efficacy of a vaccine or other experimental treatment. This is an example of medical effective altruism (MEA), where individuals volunteer to risk harms for the public good. Many bioethicists rejected challenge trials in the context of Covid-19 vaccine research on ethical grounds. After considering various grounds of this objection, I conclude that the crucial question is how much harm research subjects can permissibly risk. But we lack a satisfying way of making this judgment that does not appeal simply to the intuitions of doctors or bioethicists. I consider one recent and structurally plausible approach to critically evaluating the harm question. Alex London defends a social consistency test for research risks: we should compare the risks undertaken by research subjects to relevantly similar risks which are accepted in other spheres of society. I argue there is no good reason not to consider volunteer military service as a relevant social comparison. This implies there is essentially no cap on acceptable risks on the social consistency rationale. In short, if soldiers can be heroes, why can't research volunteers?

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Does empathy necessarily impede equity in altruism? Emerging findings from cognitive and affective science suggest that rationality and empathy are mutually compatible, contradicting some earlier, prominent arguments that empathy impedes equitable giving. We propose alternative conceptualizations of relationships among empathy, rationality, and equity, drawing on interdisciplinary advances in altruism research.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Purpose: Effective Altruism (EA) has become one of the most prominent socio-philosophical movements of recent years. EA is also facing intense scrutiny due to the business practices of some of its most prominent adherents. On the other hand, the dark triad traits of Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy have been getting increasing attention in entrepreneurship research. There is growing evidence that these traits can motivate entrepreneurial intention. We therefore sought to investigate if there was a connection between the entrepreneurship discourse in EA and traits corresponding to dark triad behavior. Design/methodology/approach: Using a discursive analytic method, we investigated the discursive threads on entrepreneurship in EA over a 10-year period. Findings: While we believe EA brings a much-needed perspective to the overall debate on doing good, we found ample evidence that it might have promoted the sort of dark triad behavior which some evidence suggests can lead to financial success, but can equally lead to the type of morally bankrupt, unethical and even illegal practices of some entrepreneurs. We also discovered a somewhat temporal dimension in EA's discourse on entrepreneurship, beginning with discourse encouraging some risk taking and entrepreneurship, before moving on to discourses on the benefits of having a smart and illicit character, and ending with a focus on aggressive risk taking. Originality: The findings contribute to the still nascent debate on dark personality traits in entrepreneurship, and enriches the theoretical advancement of the field. However, our research differs from prior studies which were almost exclusively focused on the firm. Instead, we examine this phenomenon within a highly influential belief system/philosophical movement.

RESUMEN

Although many psychologists are interested in making the world a better place through their work, they are often unable to have the impact that they would like. Here, we suggest that both individuals and psychology as a field can better improve human welfare by incorporating ideas from effective altruism, a growing movement whose members aim to do the most good by using science and reason to inform their efforts. In this article, we first briefly introduce effective altruism and review important principles that can be applied to how psychologists approach their work, such as the importance, tractability, and neglectedness framework. We then review how effective altruism can inform individual psychologists' choices. Finally, we close with a discussion of ideas for how psychology, as a field, can increase its positive impact. By applying insights from effective altruism to psychological science, we aim to integrate a new theoretical framework into psychological science, stimulate new areas of research, start a discussion on how psychology can maximize its impact, and inspire the psychology community to do the most good.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Everyone has an opportunity to contribute to climate solutions. To help people engage with this opportunity, it is critical to understand how climate organizations and fundraisers can best communicate with people and win their financial support. In particular, fundraisers often rely on practical skills and anecdotal beliefs at the expense of scientific knowledge. Fundraisers could be motivated to achieve a substantial boost in funding for climate solutions, if there is evidence of the financial gains that science-based fundraising makes available. In this Perspective, we provide a preliminary foray into such evidence. We bring together findings from philanthropic research and climate psychology to identify what factors can help captivate donors. Then, through an experimental study of a charitable appeal for a climate charity, we show how putting these factors into practice may contribute toward an increase in donated money. This provides optimism that evidence-based fundraising can inspire donors to contribute much-needed resources toward climate solutions.

RESUMEN

People usually engage in (or at least profess to engage in) altruistic acts to benefit others. Yet, they routinely fail to maximize how much good is achieved with their donated money and time. An accumulating body of research has uncovered various psychological factors that can explain why people's altruism tends to be ineffective. These prior studies have mostly focused on proximate explanations (e.g. emotions, preferences, lay beliefs). Here, we adopt an evolutionary perspective and highlight how three fundamental motives - parochialism, status, and conformity - can explain many seemingly disparate failures to do good effectively. Our approach outlines ultimate explanations for ineffective altruism, and we illustrate how fundamental motives can be leveraged to promote more effective giving.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Is altruism always morally good, or is the morality of altruism fundamentally shaped by the social opportunity costs that often accompany helping decisions? Across four studies, we reveal that in cases of realistic tradeoffs in social distance for gains in welfare where helping socially distant others necessitates not helping socially closer others with the same resources, helping is deemed as less morally acceptable. Making helping decisions at a cost to socially closer others also negatively affects judgments of relationship quality (Study 2) and in turn, decreases cooperative behavior with the helper (Study 3). Ruling out an alternative explanation of physical distance accounting for the effects in Studies 1 to 3, social distance continued to impact moral acceptability when physical distance across social targets was matched (Study 4). These findings reveal that attempts to decrease biases in helping may have previously unconsidered consequences for moral judgments, relationships, and cooperation.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Effective altruism is a growing philosophical and social movement, whose members design their lives in ways aligned with doing the most good that they can do. The main focus of this paper is to explore what effective altruism has to say about the moral obligations people have to do good with their organs, in the face of an organ-shortage problem. It is argued that an effective altruism framework offers a number of valuable theoretical and practical insights relevant to ongoing debate about how to resolve the organ-shortage problem. Its recommendations constitute a plausible and promising strategy for increasing the supply of, and decreasing the demand for, human organs, in a way that protects (rather than ignores, or preys upon) the global poor. And, many of its recommendations can be implemented into policy without requiring that citizens actually become effective altruists themselves.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The most effective charities are hundreds of times more effective than typical charities, yet few donors prioritize effectiveness. Why is that? How might we increase the effectiveness of charitable giving? We review the motivational and epistemic causes of (in)effective giving. Many donors view charitable giving as a matter of personal preference, which favors decisions based on emotional appeal rather than effectiveness. In addition, while many donors are motivated to give effectively, they often have misconceptions and cognitive biases that reduce effective giving. Nearly all research on charitable giving interventions focuses on increasing donation amounts. However, to increase societal benefit, donation effectiveness is likely to be more important. This underscores the need for research on strategies to encourage effective giving.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

In response to crises, people sometimes prioritize fewer specific identifiable victims over many unspecified statistical victims. How other factors can explain this bias remains unclear. So two experiments investigated how complying with public health recommendations during the COVID19 pandemic depended on victim portrayal, reflection, and philosophical beliefs (Total N = 998). Only one experiment found that messaging about individual victims increased compliance compared to messaging about statistical victims-i.e., "flatten the curve" graphs-an effect that was undetected after controlling for other factors. However, messaging about flu (vs. COVID19) indirectly reduced compliance by reducing perceived threat of the pandemic. Nevertheless, moral beliefs predicted compliance better than messaging and reflection in both experiments. The second experiment's additional measures revealed that religiosity, political preferences, and beliefs about science also predicted compliance. This suggests that flouting public health recommendations may be less about ineffective messaging or reasoning than philosophical differences.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

People will pay to protect our environment. To encourage donations, it is fundamental to understand the values that motivate people. Here, we identify a new opportunity to attract donations from an emerging social movement to deliver benefits to the natural world.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Charity could do the most good if every dollar donated went to causes that produced the greatest welfare gains. In line with this proposition, the effective-altruism movement seeks to provide individuals with information regarding the effectiveness of charities in hopes that they will contribute to organizations that maximize the social return of their donation. In this research, we investigated the extent to which presenting effectiveness information leads people to choose more effective charities. We found that even when effectiveness information is made easily comparable across options, it has a limited impact on choice. Specifically, people frequently choose less effective charity options when those options represent more subjectively preferred causes. In contrast to making a personal donation decision, outcome metrics are used to a much greater extent when choosing financial investments and when allocating aid resources as an agent of an organization. Implications for effective altruism are discussed.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Effective altruists aim to do the most good that they can do with the resources available to them, without causing themselves or their dependents significant harm thereby. The argument presented in this paper demonstrates that there are no morally relevant dissimilarities between living kidney donation and living kidney selling for effective altruistic reasons. Thus, since the former is allowed, the latter ought to be allowed as well. And, there are important moral differences between living kidney selling for effective altruistic reasons and other reasons for kidney vending (e.g., for personal financial gain), such that standard objections against markets in human kidneys do not attach to those markets designed around principles of effective altruism. The reasonable conclusion to draw from this is that eligible effective altruist kidney donors ought to be allowed to sell (one of) their kidneys to others in need, if they so desire. Because of this, law and policy ought to be changed to allow for this exceptional case: current laws that ban kidney selling for everyone, irrespective of their reason for selling, are unjustified.

Asunto(s)