3 ms·

Gates seems like a real embodiment of "Effective Altruism". 1. Get a bunch of money by any means necessary. 2. Donate/invest in altruistic causes. Unfortunat

Gates seems like a real embodiment of "Effective Altruism". 1. Get a bunch of money by any means necessary. 2. Donate/invest in altruistic causes. Unfortunately, most people that use effective altruism to justify themselves hoarding wealth seem to forget the second part.

ascagnel_ 1y ago
I was talking about this with a friend recently -- Romans flaunted their wealth by improving shared social infrastructure (open market spaces, parks, etc), and the robber barons of the 19th century flaunted their wealth by building cultural institutions (eg Carnegie libraries). It seems like most "effective altruists" want to do things that help "humanity" but don't help "people" -- so developing technology to explore the stars is on the table, but fighting poverty is not.
- zozbot234 1y ago
  > It seems like most "effective altruists" want to do things that help "humanity" but don't help "people" -- so developing technology to explore the stars is on the table, but fighting poverty is not. You seem to have very weird ideas about how EA funding works in practice. Long-termism is flashy and peculiar so it gets a lot of excess visibility, but "fighting poverty" tends to get the bulk of EA money, and the most controversial cause that still gets real sizeable funding seems to be animal welfare.
  - kridsdale1 1y ago
    Well all we in HN-adjacent spaces hear about is the EA people getting rich so they can build a RoccoBasilisc-countering super weapon or something.
    - zozbot234 1y ago
      That's the e/acc folks actually. Different acronym.
- flexagoon 1y ago
  > developing technology to explore the stars is on the table, but fighting poverty is not. Weird that you have that impression, since most EA-related organizations (GiveWell, Effective Altruism Foundation, etc) are heavily focused on donating to charities that address poverty or malaria in Africa
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
antisthenes 1y ago
> 1. Get a bunch of money by any means necessary. This assumes the money would not have been better spent by giving it to the workers of the company that generated it in the first place.
- kridsdale1 1y ago
  Microsoft’s first 10,000 employees became phenomenally wealthy at the IPO. That’s far more of a worker paradise than any startup unicorn you’ll see today.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
surement 1y ago
> by any means necessary This implies that they got rich by pillaging instead of countless people voluntarily giving them money in exchange for what they offered.
- AlexandrB 1y ago
  They got rich by cheating, stealing, and breaking the law. They were even convicted of it[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
  - surement 1y ago
    Your evidence is the most absurd "antitrust" lawsuit in history. What law did they break? Macs come with Safari and Android devices come with Chrome, where's the lawsuits?
guywithahat 1y ago
> by any means necessary. While I agree this is technically accurate, it implies there was something imoral about how he got his money. He created the most popular modern OS and a myriad of other technical innovations. It would be almost impossible to create more positive good in the world through his charitable donations than Microsoft
- AlexandrB 1y ago
  This is such a whitewash of Microsoft's history. There's a reason Microsoft is a convicted monopolist - they used brutally unfair tactics to push out competitors, including open source ones. Have we all forgotten the IE winter when browser innovation stopped for almost a decade thanks to Microsoft killing Netscape in the crib? Microsoft is not an ethical company - a pattern that has continued today with their user-hostile decisions.
- maest 1y ago
  Gates was so hated during the early growth days of Microsoft, that he literally got pied in the face. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK6SS8CXYZo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK6SS8CXYZo

ascagnel_ 1y ago

I was talking about this with a friend recently -- Romans flaunted their wealth by improving shared social infrastructure (open market spaces, parks, etc), and the robber barons of the 19th century flaunted their wealth by building cultural institutions (eg Carnegie libraries). It seems like most "effective altruists" want to do things that help "humanity" but don't help "people" -- so developing technology to explore the stars is on the table, but fighting poverty is not.

zozbot234 1y ago
> It seems like most "effective altruists" want to do things that help "humanity" but don't help "people" -- so developing technology to explore the stars is on the table, but fighting poverty is not. You seem to have very weird ideas about how EA funding works in practice. Long-termism is flashy and peculiar so it gets a lot of excess visibility, but "fighting poverty" tends to get the bulk of EA money, and the most controversial cause that still gets real sizeable funding seems to be animal welfare.
- kridsdale1 1y ago
  Well all we in HN-adjacent spaces hear about is the EA people getting rich so they can build a RoccoBasilisc-countering super weapon or something.
  - zozbot234 1y ago
    That's the e/acc folks actually. Different acronym.
flexagoon 1y ago
> developing technology to explore the stars is on the table, but fighting poverty is not. Weird that you have that impression, since most EA-related organizations (GiveWell, Effective Altruism Foundation, etc) are heavily focused on donating to charities that address poverty or malaria in Africa
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

antisthenes 1y ago

> 1. Get a bunch of money by any means necessary. This assumes the money would not have been better spent by giving it to the workers of the company that generated it in the first place.

kridsdale1 1y ago
Microsoft’s first 10,000 employees became phenomenally wealthy at the IPO. That’s far more of a worker paradise than any startup unicorn you’ll see today.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

surement 1y ago

> by any means necessary This implies that they got rich by pillaging instead of countless people voluntarily giving them money in exchange for what they offered.

AlexandrB 1y ago
They got rich by cheating, stealing, and breaking the law. They were even convicted of it[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
- surement 1y ago
  Your evidence is the most absurd "antitrust" lawsuit in history. What law did they break? Macs come with Safari and Android devices come with Chrome, where's the lawsuits?

guywithahat 1y ago

> by any means necessary. While I agree this is technically accurate, it implies there was something imoral about how he got his money. He created the most popular modern OS and a myriad of other technical innovations. It would be almost impossible to create more positive good in the world through his charitable donations than Microsoft

AlexandrB 1y ago
This is such a whitewash of Microsoft's history. There's a reason Microsoft is a convicted monopolist - they used brutally unfair tactics to push out competitors, including open source ones. Have we all forgotten the IE winter when browser innovation stopped for almost a decade thanks to Microsoft killing Netscape in the crib? Microsoft is not an ethical company - a pattern that has continued today with their user-hostile decisions.
maest 1y ago
Gates was so hated during the early growth days of Microsoft, that he literally got pied in the face. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK6SS8CXYZo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK6SS8CXYZo