I have mostly decided that I donāt care what anyone else thinks about the diamond next to my name, because anyone else that could be thinking of this is probably not someone in danger of dying from a neglected tropical disease. There are probably a few people in my life that would be actively upset if they were aware I was giving away thousands of pounds a year but not to them. I donāt go out of my way to wave it in their face that thatās what Iām doing, thatād be crass. But I am really rather over the idea that we all need to pretend that we donāt have any money spare for giving while at the same time socking out piles of cash on personal spending.
My hottest take is that EA needs to figure out better engagement strategies for effective givers and not constantly dunk on āearning to giveā as a controversial concept. And also make its large events cheaper (thereās been great progress on this). I reckon EA needs to prepare for the very real possibility/āeventuality of our per-person infrastructure funding getting restricted.
Hi Kestrelāthank you for your thoughtful reply and I agree with your hot takes :) Thereāre definitely similarities between FIRE and EA communities as both agree that a certain level of wealth/ācomfort is enough, but the trade-off is that the more one gives in the near term, the further out this person can FIRE with the same cushion for emergency and/āor the less continuous giving this person can draw from investments. Iām totally in support of letting effective givers figure out what works for them. My point is not that no one should donate now, but that the āofficialā EA pledge has too rigid of a structure.
I have mostly decided that I donāt care what anyone else thinks about the diamond next to my name, because anyone else that could be thinking of this is probably not someone in danger of dying from a neglected tropical disease. There are probably a few people in my life that would be actively upset if they were aware I was giving away thousands of pounds a year but not to them. I donāt go out of my way to wave it in their face that thatās what Iām doing, thatād be crass. But I am really rather over the idea that we all need to pretend that we donāt have any money spare for giving while at the same time socking out piles of cash on personal spending.
My hottest take is that EA needs to figure out better engagement strategies for effective givers and not constantly dunk on āearning to giveā as a controversial concept. And also make its large events cheaper (thereās been great progress on this). I reckon EA needs to prepare for the very real possibility/āeventuality of our per-person infrastructure funding getting restricted.
Hi Kestrelāthank you for your thoughtful reply and I agree with your hot takes :) Thereāre definitely similarities between FIRE and EA communities as both agree that a certain level of wealth/ācomfort is enough, but the trade-off is that the more one gives in the near term, the further out this person can FIRE with the same cushion for emergency and/āor the less continuous giving this person can draw from investments. Iām totally in support of letting effective givers figure out what works for them. My point is not that no one should donate now, but that the āofficialā EA pledge has too rigid of a structure.