6 ms·

At first glance weird story for HN. But figuring out interesting ways to give back should be in the future of every successful entrepreneur, and never to early

by aresant 15y ago

At first glance weird story for HN. But figuring out interesting ways to give back should be in the future of every successful entrepreneur, and never to early to get started.

bicknergseng 15y ago
It's a large part of what drives me to be an entrepreneur. Pretty hard to cruise around in a Lambo visiting kids in the hospital working middle management.
MBlume 15y ago
Interesting ways to give back should not really be a desideratum. Look for maximally efficient, effective ways of giving back.
- scintill76 15y ago
  Maybe it's impossible to find the "maximally efficient, effective ways", so you should do the interesting ones (i.e., not everyone is doing) that enrich you and make you happy, and have a measurable positive effect on others, like this guy does. With him being well-off, would it be more "maximally efficient" for him to do something else with his money? Maybe, but he wouldn't be making people happy with his black Lambo or the "real" Batmobile he is building. We don't know what would happen if he did something else, but we do know people like what he's doing.
  - philh 15y ago
    Not having perfect information is not an excuse to ignore the information you have. I don't know exactly how different the world would be if he donated $250,000 to, say, combating malaria instead of building a better Batmobile. But I would give at least 10:1 odds (if such a bet could be judged) that it would have more people alive in 20 years, for example. But saving many lives thousands of miles away doesn't feel as good as making sick children happy right here, and it doesn't make as good press. Don't get me wrong: he earned that $250,000, he's under no particular obligation to do anything with it. I consider it $250,000 that he's spending on a cool hobby that he enjoys, that also makes kids happy, and that also brings publicity to doing-good-things (probably not optimal publicity, but better than nothing). And he's certainly making the world a better place than I am, right now. But if his objective is to do as much good for the world as he can, he's not acheiving it. And we shouldn't be too critical of him, because I think criticism is more likely to turn potential Batmans to the path of not-bothering, rather than the path of utility-maximisation.
    - bad_user 15y ago
      But I would give at least 10:1 odds (if such a bet could be judged) that it would have more people alive in 20 years, for example. There are 2 problems with this statement: (1) many people sick with cancer or malaria are going to die anyway and bringing a little happiness into their lives is worth the trouble, even if those people won't count towards your "alive" statistics. "Making the world a better place" is not necessarily about keeping people alive. It's also about literally making the world a nicer place to live in. (2) When it comes to research, $250.000 is basically the salary of a good researcher or two for a year. That still counts for something, but it's peanuts.
      - philh 15y ago
        1) True. Still, I think I would choose the "malaria" world over the "batmobile" world; and the "malaria" world is probably not optimal. (Remember, he already has a Batmobile. In the "malaria" world I'm assuming he keeps using it.) 2) Research isn't the only thing money can buy. I was thinking mosquito nets. And again, that's probably not optimal.
        joelrunyon 15y ago
        I think this might be a case of doing something rather than hyperanalyzing every possible situation and doing nothing. Might not be ideal, but at least he's doing something.
        philh 15y ago
        Absolutely. He's doing way better than "nothing". But you present a false dilemma; it is possible to do some analysis without entering a hyperanalysis spiral of inaction.
        joelrunyon 15y ago
        Exactly. But by continuing to debate this, we're perpetuating the doing nothing aspect. If you were really concerned about efficiency, you wouldn't be debating this on hacker news. Compassion is not an algorithm to be optimized.
  - checker 15y ago
    I think motivation can be a huge factor. It's a lot easier to help out if you really enjoy what you're doing.
  - Eliezer 15y ago
    I think the off-the-shelf solution to this is to purchase fuzzies and utilons separately - be Batman if it keeps you going, but maybe also give $10,000/year to efficient charities on the side? http://lesswrong.com/lw/6z/purchase_fuzzies_and_utilons_separately/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/6z/purchase_fuzzies_and_utilons_sepa...
- ma2rten 15y ago
  I did a minor in international development studies. One of the things that I took away from there was that the problems of so-called developing countries (and poor people in rich countries as well) are very complex. There have been numerous well intended, philanthropic projects in past, which actually did more harm than good. Really determining what the most effective way to spend your money is, would require years of study. There are consultants you can hire to help determine this for you. That said, the influence (be it good or bad) you could have with a couple million dollar is so minuscule, that you might as well measure the benefit of it in terms of emotional value, instead of any "objective" measure.
  - timwiseman 15y ago
    couple million dollar is so minuscule, that you might as well measure the benefit of it in terms of emotional value, instead of any "objective" measure. You made excellent points up until this sentence. On a world wide scale, a couple million dollars is not even a drop in the bucket. But it can do tremendous good locally. In my own life, I was helped out enormously because someone loaned me just $5000 at a critical time. More broadly, one of my professors is involved in a small nonprofit that targets one poor village in Africa. Their global impact is minute, but they have already helped that village create (not given, but helped it create for itself) a school for its children. Globally, a couple of million is probably not objectively measurable, but if targetted and used well it can make an enormous difference in the lives of a smaller group of people.
keithvan 15y ago
I'd imagine a lot of people who read HN also love Batman :)

by aresant 15y ago

At first glance weird story for HN. But figuring out interesting ways to give back should be in the future of every successful entrepreneur, and never to early to get started.

bicknergseng 15y ago

It's a large part of what drives me to be an entrepreneur. Pretty hard to cruise around in a Lambo visiting kids in the hospital working middle management.

MBlume 15y ago

Interesting ways to give back should not really be a desideratum. Look for maximally efficient, effective ways of giving back.

scintill76 15y ago
Maybe it's impossible to find the "maximally efficient, effective ways", so you should do the interesting ones (i.e., not everyone is doing) that enrich you and make you happy, and have a measurable positive effect on others, like this guy does. With him being well-off, would it be more "maximally efficient" for him to do something else with his money? Maybe, but he wouldn't be making people happy with his black Lambo or the "real" Batmobile he is building. We don't know what would happen if he did something else, but we do know people like what he's doing.
- philh 15y ago
  Not having perfect information is not an excuse to ignore the information you have. I don't know exactly how different the world would be if he donated $250,000 to, say, combating malaria instead of building a better Batmobile. But I would give at least 10:1 odds (if such a bet could be judged) that it would have more people alive in 20 years, for example. But saving many lives thousands of miles away doesn't feel as good as making sick children happy right here, and it doesn't make as good press. Don't get me wrong: he earned that $250,000, he's under no particular obligation to do anything with it. I consider it $250,000 that he's spending on a cool hobby that he enjoys, that also makes kids happy, and that also brings publicity to doing-good-things (probably not optimal publicity, but better than nothing). And he's certainly making the world a better place than I am, right now. But if his objective is to do as much good for the world as he can, he's not acheiving it. And we shouldn't be too critical of him, because I think criticism is more likely to turn potential Batmans to the path of not-bothering, rather than the path of utility-maximisation.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    But I would give at least 10:1 odds (if such a bet could be judged) that it would have more people alive in 20 years, for example. There are 2 problems with this statement: (1) many people sick with cancer or malaria are going to die anyway and bringing a little happiness into their lives is worth the trouble, even if those people won't count towards your "alive" statistics. "Making the world a better place" is not necessarily about keeping people alive. It's also about literally making the world a nicer place to live in. (2) When it comes to research, $250.000 is basically the salary of a good researcher or two for a year. That still counts for something, but it's peanuts.
    - philh 15y ago
      1) True. Still, I think I would choose the "malaria" world over the "batmobile" world; and the "malaria" world is probably not optimal. (Remember, he already has a Batmobile. In the "malaria" world I'm assuming he keeps using it.) 2) Research isn't the only thing money can buy. I was thinking mosquito nets. And again, that's probably not optimal.
      - joelrunyon 15y ago
        I think this might be a case of doing something rather than hyperanalyzing every possible situation and doing nothing. Might not be ideal, but at least he's doing something.
        philh 15y ago
        Absolutely. He's doing way better than "nothing". But you present a false dilemma; it is possible to do some analysis without entering a hyperanalysis spiral of inaction.
        joelrunyon 15y ago
        Exactly. But by continuing to debate this, we're perpetuating the doing nothing aspect. If you were really concerned about efficiency, you wouldn't be debating this on hacker news. Compassion is not an algorithm to be optimized.
- checker 15y ago
  I think motivation can be a huge factor. It's a lot easier to help out if you really enjoy what you're doing.
- Eliezer 15y ago
  I think the off-the-shelf solution to this is to purchase fuzzies and utilons separately - be Batman if it keeps you going, but maybe also give $10,000/year to efficient charities on the side? http://lesswrong.com/lw/6z/purchase_fuzzies_and_utilons_separately/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/6z/purchase_fuzzies_and_utilons_sepa...
ma2rten 15y ago
I did a minor in international development studies. One of the things that I took away from there was that the problems of so-called developing countries (and poor people in rich countries as well) are very complex. There have been numerous well intended, philanthropic projects in past, which actually did more harm than good. Really determining what the most effective way to spend your money is, would require years of study. There are consultants you can hire to help determine this for you. That said, the influence (be it good or bad) you could have with a couple million dollar is so minuscule, that you might as well measure the benefit of it in terms of emotional value, instead of any "objective" measure.
- timwiseman 15y ago
  couple million dollar is so minuscule, that you might as well measure the benefit of it in terms of emotional value, instead of any "objective" measure. You made excellent points up until this sentence. On a world wide scale, a couple million dollars is not even a drop in the bucket. But it can do tremendous good locally. In my own life, I was helped out enormously because someone loaned me just $5000 at a critical time. More broadly, one of my professors is involved in a small nonprofit that targets one poor village in Africa. Their global impact is minute, but they have already helped that village create (not given, but helped it create for itself) a school for its children. Globally, a couple of million is probably not objectively measurable, but if targetted and used well it can make an enormous difference in the lives of a smaller group of people.

keithvan 15y ago

I'd imagine a lot of people who read HN also love Batman :)