4 ms·

> EA is pushing for this weird self-centered egotistical philanthropic avenue. That's literally the least efficient way to help anyone. What. The stereotypica

> EA is pushing for this weird self-centered egotistical philanthropic avenue. That's literally the least efficient way to help anyone. What. The stereotypical EA person is a banker who makes $150k/year after tax and donates $100k/year to the against malaria foundation. As opposed to the lawyer who quits working for corporate and becomes a gardner, which seems to be what you're advocating. The former seems to do far more good in the world, saving hundreds of young lives.

dontreact 4y ago
This is starting to feel like Motte and Bailey fallacy to me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy Either that or just confusion about what and/or who we are talking about. EA is not a well defined set of concepts or ideas. I do know a lot of people who identify as EA and have argued for "earn-to-give" where the giving part is deferred far into the future. I won't spur the confusion further but my own personal experience is that there are several people I have personally met who more closely match the parents description than the description you give. I'm all for earn-to-give if you are doing the giving soon and to causes where the outcomes are easier to measure, like what you mentioned. This is very commendable. Where EA-style thinking runs into trouble is where it places excess confidence in future predictions either A) I will eventually donate this money B) This cause I'm donating to has no obvious impact now, but it will have immense impact in the future or C) Even though I can't see all the negative impacts my work is having, my prediction/inference is that the negative impacts will be smaller than the positive impacts of my altruism. So I have nothing against the idea of trying to maximize good, I just think that I frequently see it used in conjunction with excessively high-confidence predictions or inferences. In your case, I think it's important that the banker do some sort of accounting of whether he is having a negative impact on their current project/firm etc. There are bankers who have had a huge negative impact in the past and so this does need to be part of the accounting.
didibus 4y ago
> The former seems to do far more good in the world, saving hundreds of young lives I guess the example is incomplete, the banker also contributes to some system in a way, is the work harmful to others? And if the work is beneficial, they're still part of a system where, why are they taking such a large salary in the first place? Now, I'm actually not opposed to this form of EA. Like the other commenter said, donating money is fine, it's choosing to become a banker and trying to become the highest paid banker in history, so that you can then go and donate a larger sum of that income that I find problematic. The latter form of EA seems wrong to me, because the idea that you'll take more money from people, to then personally decide who else you'll give it back too and how much of it you'll keep for yourself or not, that does not seem altruistic. Instead I wish that people adopted a moral where making excessively more than others, or owning excessively more things than others was just seen as wrong to begin with. If you don't need more than 100k, then just charge less for your services, or pay your employees and staff more, or heck accept higher tax brackets and give more back to fund social institutions and infrastructure.
- concordDance 4y ago
  > heck accept higher tax brackets and give more back to fund social institutions and infrastructure. Am I reading this wrong or are you saying that the government is the most efficient form of charity?

dontreact 4y ago

This is starting to feel like Motte and Bailey fallacy to me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy Either that or just confusion about what and/or who we are talking about. EA is not a well defined set of concepts or ideas. I do know a lot of people who identify as EA and have argued for "earn-to-give" where the giving part is deferred far into the future. I won't spur the confusion further but my own personal experience is that there are several people I have personally met who more closely match the parents description than the description you give. I'm all for earn-to-give if you are doing the giving soon and to causes where the outcomes are easier to measure, like what you mentioned. This is very commendable. Where EA-style thinking runs into trouble is where it places excess confidence in future predictions either A) I will eventually donate this money B) This cause I'm donating to has no obvious impact now, but it will have immense impact in the future or C) Even though I can't see all the negative impacts my work is having, my prediction/inference is that the negative impacts will be smaller than the positive impacts of my altruism. So I have nothing against the idea of trying to maximize good, I just think that I frequently see it used in conjunction with excessively high-confidence predictions or inferences. In your case, I think it's important that the banker do some sort of accounting of whether he is having a negative impact on their current project/firm etc. There are bankers who have had a huge negative impact in the past and so this does need to be part of the accounting.

didibus 4y ago

> The former seems to do far more good in the world, saving hundreds of young lives I guess the example is incomplete, the banker also contributes to some system in a way, is the work harmful to others? And if the work is beneficial, they're still part of a system where, why are they taking such a large salary in the first place? Now, I'm actually not opposed to this form of EA. Like the other commenter said, donating money is fine, it's choosing to become a banker and trying to become the highest paid banker in history, so that you can then go and donate a larger sum of that income that I find problematic. The latter form of EA seems wrong to me, because the idea that you'll take more money from people, to then personally decide who else you'll give it back too and how much of it you'll keep for yourself or not, that does not seem altruistic. Instead I wish that people adopted a moral where making excessively more than others, or owning excessively more things than others was just seen as wrong to begin with. If you don't need more than 100k, then just charge less for your services, or pay your employees and staff more, or heck accept higher tax brackets and give more back to fund social institutions and infrastructure.

concordDance 4y ago
> heck accept higher tax brackets and give more back to fund social institutions and infrastructure. Am I reading this wrong or are you saying that the government is the most efficient form of charity?