Yes, some people think effective altruism means helping people here and now as efficiently as possible.

Others think the sheer number of potential sentients in the future justify any amount of suffering tolerated in the here and now.

Notably, people in the latter group never assume THEY will be the ones suffering for the future.

Estimate of the number of people in that latter group? Nick Beckstead is probably the cleanest example of an extreme longtermist, but even he has taken the GWWC pledge. Similarly, Nick Bostrom argues in a pretty longtermist way and is neither vegan nor has taken the pledge, but I don’t see any particular evidence that he has a morality that an average person would call evil. Toby Ord and Will MacAskill are both visibly mundanely extra-super-ethical despite their longtermist views.

> Notably, people in the latter group never assume THEY will be the ones suffering for the future.

What makes you think so? What evidence do you have?

> Yes, some people think effective altruism means helping people here and now as efficiently as possible.

Most effective altruists seem pretty relaxed about the 'here' part, but you are right that the 'now' part receives different answers from different subgroups.

> Others think the sheer number of potential sentients in the future justify any amount of suffering tolerated in the here and now.

There's also the people who care a lot about shrimp. They are less crazy than it seems at first.