Well look, one has to do cost/benefit calculations, not just blindly surge forward in some kind of post-enlightenment fervor. To me, it seems like there is only one positive term in the equation:: the altrustic value of giving money to some existential risk charity.

All the other terms are negative, at least for me. And unless I actually overcome excuses, akrasia, etc to donate a lot, I think it'll all have been a mutually detrimental waste of time.

There is only one final criterion, the human decision problem. It trumps any other rule, however good or useful.

(You appeal to particular heuristics, using the feeling of indignation as a rhetoric weapon.)