= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Mass_Driver comments on $100 for the best article on efficient charity -- deadline Wednesday 1st December - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (57)
I see it as a "deal" between an egoist subagent and an altruist subagent.
The crucially important factor in this deal is just what the effectiveness ratio is between charity #1 and charities#2, #3, #4, #5, #6. If the marginal good done per $ is similar between all of them, then OK go ahead and diversify.
All right, well, let's consider the least convenient example. Suppose the estimated marginal good between charity #1 and #6 is off by a factor of 8 -- enough to horrify the altruist, but barely enough for the egoist (who primarily likes to think that he's being useful on lots of the most important problems) to even notice.
What can I tell the moderator subagent that would make him want to side in favor of the altruist subagent?
Well instead of spreading the money between all 6 charities, why not reduce your donation by 50% but donate all of it to #1, and then give the remaining 50% to the egoist subagent to buy something nice with?
It's good thinking, but this particular egoist primarily likes to think that he's being useful on lots of apparently important problems. He can't be bribed with ordinary status symbols like fancy watches. Is there a way to spend money to trick yourself into thinking you're useful? None immediately springs to mind, but I guess there might be one or two.
you could spend 90% of the money on cause1 and split the remaining 10% between the rest
Thank you.