I’m saying that you saving 100 or even 1 life is way less than you could do if you worked to convince rich people to save 1million lives.
And that patting yourself on the back for saving 100 is cynical.
You do have that capability: most rich people simply need to be reasoned with (others may need to be coerced). It isn’t that much more effort to convince a rich person, perhaps even less effort. We would have to run the study.
And I’m not talking about a risk. I’m talking about Risk, generally…I could spend more time exploring that with you…I do take the distinction for granted sometimes and I shouldn’t.
Okay, well, EA's both work to try to convince rich people to donate a lot and advocate that others maximize the good they an do both with their careers and with their money. This notion of patting myself on the back just seems confused. The aim of ea is not self aggrandizement (unlike I daresay many charitable organizations). Instead, it's try to maximally improve the world, something ea does quite well.
So is your pitch just that ea's should spent more time trying to convince rich people to donate a lot? If so, the claim that would be effective is an empirical claim. If you have evidence for it, I'd be interested in seeing it. If not, then my prior in that being successful is pretty low. I tend to have a pretty low prior in there being radically different ways to improve on current ea practices.
You keep talking about risk. I have no idea what risks you're referring to. Donating to cure malaria doesn't cause one to undergo any risk--what extra risk are you saying we should try to get people to undergo? It seems like if being an ea were risky, fewer people would do it.
EA's already have convinced lots of rich people to donate and others like Sam Bankman Fried to become rich and donate a lot. Is there some better way they should be doing that?
Oh god there’s so much to fix in what you just wrote. I appreciate the discussion and your engagement, but unless you’re in for the long haul on this convo, it’s going to be a lot of wasted breath.
It was a SSP. That said, if it was a blog, I’d write a blog. It’s a monograph treatment.
The biggest thing is to come to terms with risk and how to manage it. We’re not talking about an individual risk, like getting hit by a car. But managing RISK
I’m saying that you saving 100 or even 1 life is way less than you could do if you worked to convince rich people to save 1million lives.
And that patting yourself on the back for saving 100 is cynical.
You do have that capability: most rich people simply need to be reasoned with (others may need to be coerced). It isn’t that much more effort to convince a rich person, perhaps even less effort. We would have to run the study.
And I’m not talking about a risk. I’m talking about Risk, generally…I could spend more time exploring that with you…I do take the distinction for granted sometimes and I shouldn’t.
Okay, well, EA's both work to try to convince rich people to donate a lot and advocate that others maximize the good they an do both with their careers and with their money. This notion of patting myself on the back just seems confused. The aim of ea is not self aggrandizement (unlike I daresay many charitable organizations). Instead, it's try to maximally improve the world, something ea does quite well.
So is your pitch just that ea's should spent more time trying to convince rich people to donate a lot? If so, the claim that would be effective is an empirical claim. If you have evidence for it, I'd be interested in seeing it. If not, then my prior in that being successful is pretty low. I tend to have a pretty low prior in there being radically different ways to improve on current ea practices.
You keep talking about risk. I have no idea what risks you're referring to. Donating to cure malaria doesn't cause one to undergo any risk--what extra risk are you saying we should try to get people to undergo? It seems like if being an ea were risky, fewer people would do it.
EA's already have convinced lots of rich people to donate and others like Sam Bankman Fried to become rich and donate a lot. Is there some better way they should be doing that?
Oh god there’s so much to fix in what you just wrote. I appreciate the discussion and your engagement, but unless you’re in for the long haul on this convo, it’s going to be a lot of wasted breath.
Up for the long haul??
40/40/40: maybe write up your argument on your blog (if you don't want to post on the EA forum), and just share the link here? Cheers.
Shameless self promotion, it’ll be here: https://ethicspress.com/products/innovation-ethics-reframing-the-investor-thesis
It won't be 70 £'s, will it?
Whatever they charge for it lol
Well, I have no interest in paying a large sum of money to purchase your objections. Why not just post it on your blog?
It was a SSP. That said, if it was a blog, I’d write a blog. It’s a monograph treatment.
The biggest thing is to come to terms with risk and how to manage it. We’re not talking about an individual risk, like getting hit by a car. But managing RISK
Sure. Feel free to post it on your blog as Richard suggested and I'll respond on my blog for space purposes.
Will be replying to this on the Innovation Ethics substack.
There’s also a significant treatment in
Innovation Ethics: Reframing the Investor Thesis
Published by Ethics Press and coming out soon (a little past launch date, but things happen!)