3 ms·

> The underlying logic of someone who made and gave away billions being overall ahead of other people morally is sound. Do you hear yourself, not even asking h

> The underlying logic of someone who made and gave away billions being overall ahead of other people morally is sound. Do you hear yourself, not even asking how they "made" their billions? This is what "EA is indulgence for billionaires" people are talking about exactly. If you make your billions unethically, no amount of charity will make you a good person.

edanm 4y ago
> If you make your billions unethically, no amount of charity will make you a good person. I completely agree! I thought the context of the rest of my post made it clear that I assume they made it in an ethical way, but I guess it wasn't clear? I mean, if someone says they gave away billions to charity, my first question isn't immediately "but how did you make billions?". I just assume it's legit, because in most cases it's legit. And I thought I was pretty clear above that in cases it isn't legit, then that's not morally ok.
- edanm 4y ago
  I also right after said that this doesn't allow them to then go do something bad. I mean this in both directions, obviously!
  - polygamous_bat 4y ago
    My problem with assumption that you make is that you assume the billionaires came to their billions through some divine magic, and thus "a very few bad apples" can't spoil the bunch. I start my line of thinking from the other end -- what kind of regulation and laws exist that can create exponential wealth for someone whose work output only ever scales linearly. The gap between single person's output produced and wealth generated is proof that our simple abstraction that "money is just a symbol proportional to one's contribution to society" breaks down at very large (and sometimes really tiny) scales. Effective altruism will never fix that because it presupposes the system where billionaires are created and exists comfortably. The alternative, of course, is taking a closer look at the system itself and making sure our abstraction of "money = effort given to society" functions properly at all scales.
    - edanm 4y ago
      > Effective altruism will never fix that because it presupposes the system where billionaires are created and exists comfortably. The alternative, of course, is taking a closer look at the system itself and making sure our abstraction of "money = effort given to society" functions properly at all scales. I disagree with a few things you say, but this is the biggest: what does this have to do with EA? Yeah, sure, EA will never fix the systemic problems of the system it's in. Neither will scientists working on new vaccines, but you're not criticizing them for it, I imagine. You can do plenty of good in the world within the "current system", without also trying to change that system, and the fact that you're not trying shouldn't be held against you. (Although, for the record, some people in EA do think political activism is important and spend a lot of effort there.) > I start my line of thinking from the other end -- what kind of regulation and laws exist that can create exponential wealth for someone whose work output only ever scales linearly. The gap between single person's output produced and wealth generated is proof that our simple abstraction that "money is just a symbol proportional to one's contribution to society" breaks down at very large (and sometimes really tiny) scales. I don't think that's how anyone should view money. And I don't think someone's output only scales linearly. I mean, that's clearly not the case. Stephen King has written lots of books that many people enjoyed. The value he has created in the world is far larger than the value I've created, or will likely create, and it's not a linear difference. There are lots of examples like that. In general, regulations and laws don't "allow" for creation of exponential wealth, they just don't prevent something that happens completely naturally. We can certainly decide to "tax more" or something as a society, but that comes with its own problems.
- danaris 4y ago
  It is impossible to make billions of dollars in an ethical way (short of inheriting it from someone who made it in an unethical way). First of all, just looking at empirical evidence, all the existing billionaires—every single one—made their billions through some form of exploitation. Second of all, you can't make billions without going through millions for a good while—and once you have enough money to live comfortably for the rest of your life (which I'm not going to try to put an exact number on, but I think it's fair to say it's somewhere in the millions), it is unethical not to find ways to use the rest of it to improve the lives of the rest of the people on Earth.

edanm 4y ago

> If you make your billions unethically, no amount of charity will make you a good person. I completely agree! I thought the context of the rest of my post made it clear that I assume they made it in an ethical way, but I guess it wasn't clear? I mean, if someone says they gave away billions to charity, my first question isn't immediately "but how did you make billions?". I just assume it's legit, because in most cases it's legit. And I thought I was pretty clear above that in cases it isn't legit, then that's not morally ok.

edanm 4y ago
I also right after said that this doesn't allow them to then go do something bad. I mean this in both directions, obviously!
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  My problem with assumption that you make is that you assume the billionaires came to their billions through some divine magic, and thus "a very few bad apples" can't spoil the bunch. I start my line of thinking from the other end -- what kind of regulation and laws exist that can create exponential wealth for someone whose work output only ever scales linearly. The gap between single person's output produced and wealth generated is proof that our simple abstraction that "money is just a symbol proportional to one's contribution to society" breaks down at very large (and sometimes really tiny) scales. Effective altruism will never fix that because it presupposes the system where billionaires are created and exists comfortably. The alternative, of course, is taking a closer look at the system itself and making sure our abstraction of "money = effort given to society" functions properly at all scales.
  - edanm 4y ago
    > Effective altruism will never fix that because it presupposes the system where billionaires are created and exists comfortably. The alternative, of course, is taking a closer look at the system itself and making sure our abstraction of "money = effort given to society" functions properly at all scales. I disagree with a few things you say, but this is the biggest: what does this have to do with EA? Yeah, sure, EA will never fix the systemic problems of the system it's in. Neither will scientists working on new vaccines, but you're not criticizing them for it, I imagine. You can do plenty of good in the world within the "current system", without also trying to change that system, and the fact that you're not trying shouldn't be held against you. (Although, for the record, some people in EA do think political activism is important and spend a lot of effort there.) > I start my line of thinking from the other end -- what kind of regulation and laws exist that can create exponential wealth for someone whose work output only ever scales linearly. The gap between single person's output produced and wealth generated is proof that our simple abstraction that "money is just a symbol proportional to one's contribution to society" breaks down at very large (and sometimes really tiny) scales. I don't think that's how anyone should view money. And I don't think someone's output only scales linearly. I mean, that's clearly not the case. Stephen King has written lots of books that many people enjoyed. The value he has created in the world is far larger than the value I've created, or will likely create, and it's not a linear difference. There are lots of examples like that. In general, regulations and laws don't "allow" for creation of exponential wealth, they just don't prevent something that happens completely naturally. We can certainly decide to "tax more" or something as a society, but that comes with its own problems.
danaris 4y ago
It is impossible to make billions of dollars in an ethical way (short of inheriting it from someone who made it in an unethical way). First of all, just looking at empirical evidence, all the existing billionaires—every single one—made their billions through some form of exploitation. Second of all, you can't make billions without going through millions for a good while—and once you have enough money to live comfortably for the rest of your life (which I'm not going to try to put an exact number on, but I think it's fair to say it's somewhere in the millions), it is unethical not to find ways to use the rest of it to improve the lives of the rest of the people on Earth.