You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Mass_Driver comments on $100 for the best article on efficient charity -- deadline Wednesday 1st December - Less Wrong Discussion

13 Post author: FormallyknownasRoko 24 November 2010 10:31PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (57)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Mass_Driver 27 November 2010 02:51:03AM *  9 points [-]

So, I know it's wise to purchase warm fuzzies and utilons separately, but it just so happens that I get a significant quantity of warm fuzzies from saving hundreds of lives. I'm weird like that.

Anyway, suppose (against all evidence) that utilities are ordinally intercomparable. Suppose further that the relevant chunk of my utility function is U(charity) = U(fuzzies) + U(altruism), where U(fuzzies) = ln(# of lives saved), and U(altruism) = (net utility of saved life to owner) * (my discount rate for the utility of strangers). Let's say the typical life saved by charities is worth 30,000 utilons to its owner, and that my discount rate for strangers' utility is 1/100,000.

So, if I save 200 lives, I get ln(200) + (30,000 * 200 / 100,000) = 65 utilons for me. If I save 2,000 lives, I get ln(2000) + (30,000 * 2,000 / 100,000) = 607 utilons for me. My original point was going to be that I do get diminishing marginal returns to charity, but apparently given my assumptions they diminish so slowly as to be practically constant, and so I will shut up and pick just one charity in so far as I can find the willpower to do so.

Hooray for accidentally proving yourself wrong with back of the envelope calculations.