‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

The evolution of effective altruism

66 points · 171 comments · bazzmt

  1. cyanydeez · · focus · HN ↗
    Just a magical mental gymnastics for someone who got the message that greed is bad, but wanted to continue being greedy.
    1. s1artibartfast · · focus · HN ↗
      Genuinely curious why you feel that way?
      1. cyanydeez · · focus · HN ↗
        First, you can read about Sam Bankman-Fried; then you can say "oh, he's not _real_ effective altrusim...and do your backflips.
        1. s1artibartfast · · focus · HN ↗
          But that is one human, and not a very honest one.

          Is that the standard you hold everything to?

          1. AnimalMuppet · · focus · HN ↗
            Show us the counterexample, then. Preferably more than one. Someone who wears the EA label, and actually does things to help with real problems.
            1. jefftk · · focus · HN ↗
              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.
              1. AnimalMuppet · · focus · HN ↗
                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?

                1. s1artibartfast · · focus · HN ↗
                  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.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.