Comments
I’d like to see some scenarios for each point to paint a clearer picture. I do agree with all 3 points although I would order them 3-2-1 in terms of strength of the arguments.
More from the author
Curated and popular this week
This post is co-authored with Ben Garfinkel. It is cross-posted from the CEA blog. A PDF version can be found here.
Summary: Some strategic decisions available to the effective altruism m...
72
TL;DR: I'm releasing a website that ranks philanthropists according to EA principles and research, and allows users to re-rank the list using their own assumptions. I'd like feedback and help making it better. I'd especially like ideas for how to make the results more trustworthy. Funding may be available.
Crossposted to LessWrong.
...
41
Linkpost for my Substack piece, lightly adapted. Disagreement very welcome.
What happened
Coefficient Giving (cG) announced a $1 billion gift to GiveWell on 23rd July. This increases a previous commitment of $175m for 2026. cG say this could be a one-off surge, but it has implications for other donors either way. Both organisations...
Recent opportunities to take action
It seems unlikely that the interests of future generations would be different to our own, so efforts at improving our own interests is very effective at improving theirs as well?
In general yes, but whether and how much we discount their welfare affects our decision making with regards to what does the most good
If our interests are qualitatively the same, it doesn't matter to what extent we weigh their interest. We are achieving it by pursuing our own: health, wealth, happiness.
Perhaps if you feel otherwise, it's because you feel we are mortgaging our future for the present? I don't think that is true, generally. Climate change, national debt, insolvent pensions....all are tractable problems we're either a) solving now and/or, b) are sufficiently incentivized to solve for.