Thanks for the counterpoint, I think thatās an interesting perspective and in the abstract valid.
Nevertheless, as far as I can tell, in practice these discussions here donāt seem to focus on the assessment of whether āother people spend too much now and not enough laterā beyond the general assertion that people tend to discount the feature and the conclusion that, thus, there are opportunities to gain comparatively by investing.
However, what I havenāt really seen are good arguments that people are actually spending too much now and not enough later[1] or models which model this aspect in some way. In another comment I have outlined in more detail, why I think that it is important to explicitly consider the ānatureā of problem solving when making such analyses and decisions.
Long story short, I think current models of giving now vs. giving later are way too simple and additional consideration about problem solving in general would lead me to believe that giving later should not become āthe defaultā for longtermist givingāat least until we have set up an appropriate infrastructure to effectively identify and address problems as they arise. However, I donāt want to misrepresent the position of giving later advocates who have often acknowledged that giving now that takes the form of āinvestmentsā (as I am suggesting) is somewhat exempt from the discussion. I agree that there might be substantial room for investments as part of wise philanthropic activity, I just donāt think itās a winning strategy by itself. Thus, what I mostly seem to disagree with is the framing and emphasis of the debate.
Circling back to my comment on free riding. Simply postponing giving into the future under the assumption that other people will figure out what to do by then seems dangerous unless appropriate measures are taken to ensure that actual progress does happen at a reasonable rate as the world could also become much worse (e.g. climate change). However, postponing giving into the future, makes the individual who is postponing comparatively better of in the future, which would be a plus. Thus, there is in interesting dilemma situation here, where altruists who are not 100% aligned could get into conflict about who should invest when and how much to maximize overall expected value.
To avoid any potential conflicts as much as possible, care should be taken to communicate why specific decision to give now or later where made and how this is expected to affect the community as a whole. For instance, I would expect an organization considering giving later at a large scale like Founders Pledge to clearly articulate their strategy and what the EA community can expect from them now and in the future in a way that can be checked for value alignment over time. Otherwise, it seems totally plausible that opaque and non-transparent behavior could be perceived as free riding on the investments of the community as a whole.
To me that notion actually seems to be a little bit paradoxical because the notion of giving later seems to imply that there will be better opportunities in the future but at the same time we seem to expect less giving then. Economics 101 would suggest that better opportunities would attract more buyers. Thus, wouldnāt we need some other type of argument which considers the nature of the problem under consideration to justify giving later?
Thanks for the counterpoint, I think thatās an interesting perspective and in the abstract valid.
Nevertheless, as far as I can tell, in practice these discussions here donāt seem to focus on the assessment of whether āother people spend too much now and not enough laterā beyond the general assertion that people tend to discount the feature and the conclusion that, thus, there are opportunities to gain comparatively by investing.
However, what I havenāt really seen are good arguments that people are actually spending too much now and not enough later[1] or models which model this aspect in some way. In another comment I have outlined in more detail, why I think that it is important to explicitly consider the ānatureā of problem solving when making such analyses and decisions.
Long story short, I think current models of giving now vs. giving later are way too simple and additional consideration about problem solving in general would lead me to believe that giving later should not become āthe defaultā for longtermist givingāat least until we have set up an appropriate infrastructure to effectively identify and address problems as they arise. However, I donāt want to misrepresent the position of giving later advocates who have often acknowledged that giving now that takes the form of āinvestmentsā (as I am suggesting) is somewhat exempt from the discussion. I agree that there might be substantial room for investments as part of wise philanthropic activity, I just donāt think itās a winning strategy by itself. Thus, what I mostly seem to disagree with is the framing and emphasis of the debate.
Circling back to my comment on free riding. Simply postponing giving into the future under the assumption that other people will figure out what to do by then seems dangerous unless appropriate measures are taken to ensure that actual progress does happen at a reasonable rate as the world could also become much worse (e.g. climate change). However, postponing giving into the future, makes the individual who is postponing comparatively better of in the future, which would be a plus. Thus, there is in interesting dilemma situation here, where altruists who are not 100% aligned could get into conflict about who should invest when and how much to maximize overall expected value.
To avoid any potential conflicts as much as possible, care should be taken to communicate why specific decision to give now or later where made and how this is expected to affect the community as a whole. For instance, I would expect an organization considering giving later at a large scale like Founders Pledge to clearly articulate their strategy and what the EA community can expect from them now and in the future in a way that can be checked for value alignment over time. Otherwise, it seems totally plausible that opaque and non-transparent behavior could be perceived as free riding on the investments of the community as a whole.
To me that notion actually seems to be a little bit paradoxical because the notion of giving later seems to imply that there will be better opportunities in the future but at the same time we seem to expect less giving then. Economics 101 would suggest that better opportunities would attract more buyers. Thus, wouldnāt we need some other type of argument which considers the nature of the problem under consideration to justify giving later?