1) You could make an objection about value drift and this should influence you to donate now, but I don’t think this gets to the heart of the issue.
2) If now is the “hinge of history”, maybe it is a uniquely good time to do longtermist philanthropy.
However, if we believe neartermist work is pressing enough to justify funding as well, it seems like patient philanthropy is pretty much a pareto improvemnt over normal neartermist philanthropy.
Would any justification for neartermist philanthropy change this?
I think value drift (along with risk of losing control of your assets due to any number of scenarios) can just be modeled by discounting the expected growth rate for risk of loss. If you think you have a 1% chance of losing your money each year, you might treat your investment growth rate as 4.2% instead of 5.2%, for example.
I don’t think I have a good objection here.
1) You could make an objection about value drift and this should influence you to donate now, but I don’t think this gets to the heart of the issue.
2) If now is the “hinge of history”, maybe it is a uniquely good time to do longtermist philanthropy.
However, if we believe neartermist work is pressing enough to justify funding as well, it seems like patient philanthropy is pretty much a pareto improvemnt over normal neartermist philanthropy.
Would any justification for neartermist philanthropy change this?
I think value drift (along with risk of losing control of your assets due to any number of scenarios) can just be modeled by discounting the expected growth rate for risk of loss. If you think you have a 1% chance of losing your money each year, you might treat your investment growth rate as 4.2% instead of 5.2%, for example.