"Earning to Give and the Case for My Drinking Problem" or "Gay Son or Thot Daughter: A Decision-Theoretic Treatment"

it is about love of the game

Most fans loved that challenge. We're you worried? Angry? Either way you just had to wait for the next installment.

Strange that you dont remember that the protagonist was the titular Harry Potter.

Why should you be able to drive on roads that I paid for without spending a cent? You want to sleep in my bed and eat out of my fridge too?

If someone wants to stay home and be a subsistence farmer then fine.

If they want to start using and consuming public resources, why shouldn't they pay their fair share?

Also, economies can grow rather than just inflate

I can take a loan against or collateralized my home value.

I can have greater operational flexibility if I know I have a deep financial backup.

There is something to it, even if overstated

Some SBF Quotes

> "This dumb shit I said—it's not true. Not really. Every soul-searching, virtue-signaling thing I said was just part of the game."

> "Fuck regulators. They make everything worse. They don't protect customers at all."

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.

It doesn't seem like most people are taking the agnostic "wait and see" approach when it comes to judging effective altruists (or vegans).

To accept that someone else might be right on a moral issue also means accepting that you might be morally wrong.

I don't send 10% of my income to charity or eat vegan, but it does seem to me that people feel threatened when they see others doing this

The same is true for science and Engineering.

What matters is if you have a method of sorting through the repetitive trash

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.

Is that the standard you hold everything to?