3 ms·

That is the point though... would you rather “feel good” doing charity, or have a positive effect on society? Donating cash instead of physically participating

That is the point though... would you rather “feel good” doing charity, or have a positive effect on society? Donating cash instead of physically participating in charity can be alienating, sure... but certainly more effective. Note that many food charities for decades now but even in the past year are like don’t send cans of food, send cash, because it has the most effect.

yrimaxi 6y ago
> Donating cash instead of physically participating in charity can be alienating, sure... but certainly more effective. Do you have proof? Because whether it “feels good” (or rather, feels like you are actually doing something, rather than trying to motivate yourself by convincing yourself that the numbers are correct and you are (indirectly) doing something) will influence how much good you can do. Some things—like only eating Soylent or maximizing your goodiness-output by working on Wall Street (or wherever else)—might only work well on paper. In any case my point all along was the alienation factor. That’s the point, to me. Raise whatever other point you would like. (Of course an EA-enthusiast would only care about the supposed numbers.)
notahacker 6y ago
> Donating cash instead of physically participating in charity can be alienating, sure... but certainly more effective. It can be more effective sure, especially if the physical participation is flying long haul to offer considerably less skilled construction labour than locally-based hungry people. But a division of labour between smart, driven people working outside the third sector to fund it and only people incapable of securing well paid jobs left inside the sector to spend it is also unlikely to lead to better resource allocation. There are certainly initiatives that could use a good software lead more than they could use a generous portion of a software lead's FAANG salary to hire some mediocre contractors, for example.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

yrimaxi 6y ago

> Donating cash instead of physically participating in charity can be alienating, sure... but certainly more effective. Do you have proof? Because whether it “feels good” (or rather, feels like you are actually doing something, rather than trying to motivate yourself by convincing yourself that the numbers are correct and you are (indirectly) doing something) will influence how much good you can do. Some things—like only eating Soylent or maximizing your goodiness-output by working on Wall Street (or wherever else)—might only work well on paper. In any case my point all along was the alienation factor. That’s the point, to me. Raise whatever other point you would like. (Of course an EA-enthusiast would only care about the supposed numbers.)

notahacker 6y ago

> Donating cash instead of physically participating in charity can be alienating, sure... but certainly more effective. It can be more effective sure, especially if the physical participation is flying long haul to offer considerably less skilled construction labour than locally-based hungry people. But a division of labour between smart, driven people working outside the third sector to fund it and only people incapable of securing well paid jobs left inside the sector to spend it is also unlikely to lead to better resource allocation. There are certainly initiatives that could use a good software lead more than they could use a generous portion of a software lead's FAANG salary to hire some mediocre contractors, for example.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]