Theyāre not āobjectionsā, because youāve misunderstood your target. EA is perfectly compatible with judging that itās better to give later. Thatās an open empirical question. But yes, lots has been written on it. See, e.g., Julia Wiseās Giving now vs later: a summary (and the many links contained therein).
>Theyāre not āobjectionsā, because youāve misunderstood your target
Then please, explain what Iāve misunderstood.
Thanks for the link, but most of the links included therein were either broken or argued for exactly my point. For example, the link to the SSC essay concluded with āunless you think the world is more than 70% certain to end before you die, saving like Robin suggests is the best optionā ā¦. meaning that itās smarter to invest than to donate. Do you have a better source or argument to present?
Also Iād appreciate it if you could respond to my previous question about the dependence of the EA position on the notion of intrinsic value.
Theyāre not āobjectionsā, because youāve misunderstood your target. EA is perfectly compatible with judging that itās better to give later. Thatās an open empirical question. But yes, lots has been written on it. See, e.g., Julia Wiseās Giving now vs later: a summary (and the many links contained therein).
>Theyāre not āobjectionsā, because youāve misunderstood your target
Then please, explain what Iāve misunderstood.
Thanks for the link, but most of the links included therein were either broken or argued for exactly my point. For example, the link to the SSC essay concluded with āunless you think the world is more than 70% certain to end before you die, saving like Robin suggests is the best optionā ā¦. meaning that itās smarter to invest than to donate. Do you have a better source or argument to present?
Also Iād appreciate it if you could respond to my previous question about the dependence of the EA position on the notion of intrinsic value.
Iād appreciate a reply to my comment, even if itās to just to tell me that intrinsic value is inherent to the EA philosophy.