= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
timtyler comments on Efficient Charity - 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 (182)
I am pretty sure that - if your aim is to try and ensure our descendants colonise the galaxy successfully - then helping the needy in Mozambique is not going to be the best way to do that.
What is the supposed aim of this "good quality" charitable giving? Presumably there is no generally agreed-on one - and different participants pull in somewhat different directions.
I agree. But getting people to accept optimal philanthropy in uncontroversial domains is a neccessary precursor to getting them to accept x-risk. In fact I have had conversations with people high-up in organizations like Givewell and GWWC who used this explicit argument: get reputational capital from succeeding at 3rd world poverty, then expend it on x-risk.
Exactly. Even if a LWer is convinced giving to existential risk charities is optimal, they should still be in favor of persuading people to become better philanthropists in uncontroversial domains whenever it's not possible to directly persuade people to be proponents of existential risk reduction.
I have to know... why 'Formally'? It's distracting me while I read the new comments thread. :)
I myself do have this aim :-). See my response to a comment by taw.
Could be. I think that many/most people have some utilitarian impulse in them and this is what I was appealing to in my article.