Just a magical mental gymnastics for someone who got the message that greed is bad, but wanted to continue being greedy.

▲

karim79 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The title alone is comical. "Here are ten reasons to continue to be greedy...".

▲

SpicyLemonZest 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

seu 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

probably the best description of EA that I've read so far.

▲

bawolff 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

kylestanfield 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

	▲	jefftk 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> 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").

▲

AnimalMuppet 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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.)

	▲	jefftk 21 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

s1artibartfast 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Genuinely curious why you feel that way?

▲

cyanydeez 2 hours ago | parent [-]

First, you can read about Sam Bankman-Fried; then you can say "oh, he's not _real_ effective altrusim...and do your backflips.

▲

s1artibartfast 2 hours ago | parent [-]

But that is one human, and not a very honest one.

Is that the standard you hold everything to?

▲

AnimalMuppet 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Show us the counterexample, then. Preferably more than one. Someone who wears the EA label, and actually does things to help with real problems.

	▲	jefftk 18 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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.
	▲	s1artibartfast 39 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		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 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.