I think the existence of investing for the future as a meta option to improve the far future essentially invalidates both of your points. Investing money in a long-term fund won’t hit diminishing returns anytime soon. I think of it as the “Give Directly of longtermism”.
Well I’d say that funding lead elimination isn’t longtermist all other things equal. It sounds as if FTX’s motivation for funding it was for community health / PR reasons in which case it may have longtermist benefits through those channels.
Whether longtermists should be patient or not is a tricky, nuanced question which I am unsure about, but I would say I’m more open to patience than most.
I think the existence of investing for the future as a meta option to improve the far future essentially invalidates both of your points. Investing money in a long-term fund won’t hit diminishing returns anytime soon. I think of it as the “Give Directly of longtermism”.
I’d be interested to see the details. What’s the expected value of a rainy day fund, and what factors does it depend on?
Founders Pledge’s Investing to Give report is an accessible resource on this.
I wrote a short overview here.
Do you think FTX funding lead elimination is a mistake, and that they should do patient philanthropy instead?
Well I’d say that funding lead elimination isn’t longtermist all other things equal. It sounds as if FTX’s motivation for funding it was for community health / PR reasons in which case it may have longtermist benefits through those channels.
Whether longtermists should be patient or not is a tricky, nuanced question which I am unsure about, but I would say I’m more open to patience than most.