You might benefit from thinking critically about who and what you consider to be greedy. If you don't, it's easy to be tricked by various kinds of shell games, where certain kinds of work are never considered "greedy" or certain kinds of charity make the donor appear disproportionately generous. One game that's become pretty well known is how many "donations" to well-funded schools are in fact admissions payments for wealthy kids.
Meh, they have some beliefs i disagree with, but ultimately they are spending money on things like feeding the hungry.
I feel like there is this weird thing where people will criticize people who do charity work in not quite the right way (from the criticizers perspective), but are totally fine with people who just use their money to buy a yacht.
I'd much rather have people spend their money on feeding the hungry, even imperfectly then spending it on other pursuits.
I sometimes wonder what the critics of EA are doing to eradicate the ills of the world or even their local community. Is it more than what EA is doing? If not, i'd say those in glass houses should be wary of throwing stones.
This is a motte and bailey fallacy. I don’t think many people take issue with feeding the hungry. However the longtermist sect and their idea that enriching yourself as much as people so you can do more good later leads to the actual controversial actions especially when taken to its logical extremes. And the AI fanaticism got mixed in there somehow.
> their idea that enriching yourself as much as people so you can do more good later
This is a very uncommon idea within EA. There are some people who support it ("patient philanthropy") but almost everyone within EA either thinks you should be working / donating to help people/animals (most "neartermists") or you should be working / donating to help reduce extinction risk (most "longtermists").
Are there examples of these "controversial actions". Are they actions that wouldn't have happened without the ideology of EA. How prominent is it within the movement.
I'm opened to having my mind changed, but i'm going to need more than that.
I'm not sure i see how that is really linked to effective alturism as a philosophy. Sounds like person famous for grifting did some grifting, but that happens all the time in normal philanthropy too.
I don't think EA is immune from grifters or people with bad intentions. It is after all a movement made up of humans. I think the question to be answered is does the philosophy encourage it in a way that other philosophies around philanthropy don't.
> Meh, they have some beliefs i disagree with, but ultimately they are spending money on things like feeding the hungry.
Are they? To what degree are they? And to what degree are they not helping the hungry today, in order to amass more money so that they can in theory help the hungry more tomorrow?
I can respect someone like Bill Gates. He hasn't been perfect, not by a long shot, but he's put real money into really trying to help real problems. What's the track record of the effective altruists? (Genuine question - I haven't researched them enough to know.)
Feeding the hungry in particular is uncommon, but global poverty (usually malaria nets and other specific impactful + neglected interventions) is the largest cause area in EA, and something I've personally donated a lot to.
I'm not really an expert on EA. I just want to understand the public sentiment because it is increasingly part of the political moment, to the point the president is tweeting about it and running a PR campaign against them.
According to AI, the biggest EA charity is GiveWell, which spends about 600 million per year. 95% of the money on low-cost high-impact global health programs like mosquito Nets and vitamins for children.
There is also open philanthropy, which gives about 500 million per year With a wider perspective. Roughly 50, 40 and 10% go to Global Health, Existential Risks, and then Animal Welfare in that order.
That said, I'm not really trying to argue the case. If the simple reason is that people have characterized EA based on SBF, and that's how they think about these things, then that is a complete answer.
I've been on HN about as long as I've been an EA, over which period I've donated more than half my income. I work at a biosecurity nonprofit, trying to reduce the risk we all die in a bioattack.
Then, I have some sincere questions. No, wait. First, my sincere compliments, both for your work and your giving.
Now, questions:
In your view (which I will listen to, because you're actually an EA), is the "wait until later to be more effective" actually a part of EA? Or is that a separate thing that calls itself by the same label?
If it's the same thing, it sounds like you don't act that way. Do you not buy the "later" logic? If not, why not?
EA is a bunch of people who have a similar way of looking at how to apply our resources and effort to making the world better, but even within EA there's still a ton of disagreement over what better means and how to go about getting there.
The idea of waiting until later is typically called "patient philanthropy". The argument is something like:
1. People matter equally regardless of when they exist.
2. Money you invest could be far more money in the future.
3. Giving opportunities will be about as good in the future as they are today.
4. Therefore if you save to donate later you can do a lot more good.
This often looks like putting money in a Donor Advised Fund to lock in the "this has to go to charity" while still letting it grow, and then later deciding where to donate it.
It's not a common position within EA, and isn't one I hold (so I may not be fully fair to it). The main objection is to point 3: there are actually a bunch of reasons to expect that money donated today will go further than money donated later. The big one, from my perspective, is that we are increasingly creating more powerful AI systems, and we're close to making ones that are smarter than almost everyone. This is very different from anything people have done before, and could have extremely long term consequences (extinction, loss of human control over the future, locking in values that on reflection aren't great, etc).
I could see a different argument against 3. Let's say you give some money now that lifts some people out of poverty. Those people don't raise their kids in poverty, which changes their kids' position, which means that their kids don't grow up in poverty, and so on. So money given now can have a compounding effect in peoples' lives, affecting more people in the future than just the people it affects today.
Yes! This sort of compounding effect is also a potential reason to prefer giving sooner. But it is important to be clear-eyed about the extent to which compounding is really happening: while it's a story we all want to believe, there's also substantial potential for regression to the mean.
I hang out with a lot of EA friends and I have never heard anyone advocate for it.
The concept is called "patient phlithoropy", apparently about 1% of EA donations go to such funds.
There is no pope of EA that sets doctrine, so anyone can do and say what they want.
I have heard a similar argument that you dont need to sell everything you own and donate it all, because a steady X% per year is better than a lump sum and then homelessness. Or that it makes sense to spend on a college degree so you can earn and donate more later. Both make sense to me.
That said, basically every philanthropic org makes some degegree of "wait until later to be more effective". The gates foundation or churches dont try to spend every penny they have in the current year.
> Show us the counterexample, then. Preferably more than one.
The thousands who donate to charity like Against Malaria Foundation or direct cash transfers, and many who pledge to donate a large percentage of their income?
cyanydeez · · focus · HN ↗
seu · · focus · HN ↗
karim79 · · focus · HN ↗
SpicyLemonZest · · focus · HN ↗
bawolff · · focus · HN ↗
I feel like there is this weird thing where people will criticize people who do charity work in not quite the right way (from the criticizers perspective), but are totally fine with people who just use their money to buy a yacht.
I'd much rather have people spend their money on feeding the hungry, even imperfectly then spending it on other pursuits.
I sometimes wonder what the critics of EA are doing to eradicate the ills of the world or even their local community. Is it more than what EA is doing? If not, i'd say those in glass houses should be wary of throwing stones.
kylestanfield · · focus · HN ↗
jefftk · · focus · HN ↗
This is a very uncommon idea within EA. There are some people who support it ("patient philanthropy") but almost everyone within EA either thinks you should be working / donating to help people/animals (most "neartermists") or you should be working / donating to help reduce extinction risk (most "longtermists").
bawolff · · focus · HN ↗
I'm opened to having my mind changed, but i'm going to need more than that.
fragmede · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahemerson/2023/02/28/effective-altruism-linked-group-used-millions-donated-by-ftx-to-buy-a-czech-castle/" rel="nofollow">https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahemerson/2023/02/28/effecti...
(They are now selling said castle.)
bawolff · · focus · HN ↗
I don't think EA is immune from grifters or people with bad intentions. It is after all a movement made up of humans. I think the question to be answered is does the philosophy encourage it in a way that other philosophies around philanthropy don't.
AnimalMuppet · · focus · HN ↗
Are they? To what degree are they? And to what degree are they not helping the hungry today, in order to amass more money so that they can in theory help the hungry more tomorrow?
I can respect someone like Bill Gates. He hasn't been perfect, not by a long shot, but he's put real money into really trying to help real problems. What's the track record of the effective altruists? (Genuine question - I haven't researched them enough to know.)
jefftk · · focus · HN ↗
s1artibartfast · · focus · HN ↗
cyanydeez · · focus · HN ↗
s1artibartfast · · focus · HN ↗
Is that the standard you hold everything to?
AnimalMuppet · · focus · HN ↗
s1artibartfast · · focus · HN ↗
According to AI, the biggest EA charity is GiveWell, which spends about 600 million per year. 95% of the money on low-cost high-impact global health programs like mosquito Nets and vitamins for children.
There is also open philanthropy, which gives about 500 million per year With a wider perspective. Roughly 50, 40 and 10% go to Global Health, Existential Risks, and then Animal Welfare in that order.
That said, I'm not really trying to argue the case. If the simple reason is that people have characterized EA based on SBF, and that's how they think about these things, then that is a complete answer.
jefftk · · focus · HN ↗
AnimalMuppet · · focus · HN ↗
Now, questions:
In your view (which I will listen to, because you're actually an EA), is the "wait until later to be more effective" actually a part of EA? Or is that a separate thing that calls itself by the same label?
If it's the same thing, it sounds like you don't act that way. Do you not buy the "later" logic? If not, why not?
jefftk · · focus · HN ↗
The idea of waiting until later is typically called "patient philanthropy". The argument is something like:
1. People matter equally regardless of when they exist.
2. Money you invest could be far more money in the future.
3. Giving opportunities will be about as good in the future as they are today.
4. Therefore if you save to donate later you can do a lot more good.
This often looks like putting money in a Donor Advised Fund to lock in the "this has to go to charity" while still letting it grow, and then later deciding where to donate it.
It's not a common position within EA, and isn't one I hold (so I may not be fully fair to it). The main objection is to point 3: there are actually a bunch of reasons to expect that money donated today will go further than money donated later. The big one, from my perspective, is that we are increasingly creating more powerful AI systems, and we're close to making ones that are smarter than almost everyone. This is very different from anything people have done before, and could have extremely long term consequences (extinction, loss of human control over the future, locking in values that on reflection aren't great, etc).
AnimalMuppet · · focus · HN ↗
jefftk · · focus · HN ↗
s1artibartfast · · focus · HN ↗
The concept is called "patient phlithoropy", apparently about 1% of EA donations go to such funds.
There is no pope of EA that sets doctrine, so anyone can do and say what they want.
I have heard a similar argument that you dont need to sell everything you own and donate it all, because a steady X% per year is better than a lump sum and then homelessness. Or that it makes sense to spend on a college degree so you can earn and donate more later. Both make sense to me.
That said, basically every philanthropic org makes some degegree of "wait until later to be more effective". The gates foundation or churches dont try to spend every penny they have in the current year.
lanfeust6 · · focus · HN ↗
The thousands who donate to charity like Against Malaria Foundation or direct cash transfers, and many who pledge to donate a large percentage of their income?