I know that EAs and FIRE people often hang out in similar social spacesāas theyāre both interested in things like higher-paying jobs, lower-cost lifestyles, and well-chosen investment strategies. I also know of a few FIRE people who plan on donating their wealth to effective charities should they not end up spending it all in retirement. I believe the rough opinion of EAs who donate now is that there are a number of pressing near-term issues that will (hopefully!) not exist in 40 years. One might hope that weād have eradicated malaria by then, for example. So people who are really interested in fighting malaria (or other neglected global health challenges) donate now.
I think the choice for an effective giver to pledge or not to pledge, to advertise or not to advertise oneās giving, to donate now or later etc. is really an individualās choice, and Iād support them setting up a structure that works for them and their life. It seems like you have a structure that works for you, and Iām glad of that.
On a separate note: Iām hoping that EA is getting away from being āAI safety long words clubā as a result of a) AI safety group organising spinning out of EA into its own thing, and b) funded AI safety work becoming more about public and government engagement rather than fairly niche research.
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.
Hi Zoe! Great to see you on the Forum.
I know that EAs and FIRE people often hang out in similar social spacesāas theyāre both interested in things like higher-paying jobs, lower-cost lifestyles, and well-chosen investment strategies. I also know of a few FIRE people who plan on donating their wealth to effective charities should they not end up spending it all in retirement. I believe the rough opinion of EAs who donate now is that there are a number of pressing near-term issues that will (hopefully!) not exist in 40 years. One might hope that weād have eradicated malaria by then, for example. So people who are really interested in fighting malaria (or other neglected global health challenges) donate now.
I think the choice for an effective giver to pledge or not to pledge, to advertise or not to advertise oneās giving, to donate now or later etc. is really an individualās choice, and Iād support them setting up a structure that works for them and their life. It seems like you have a structure that works for you, and Iām glad of that.
On a separate note: Iām hoping that EA is getting away from being āAI safety long words clubā as a result of a) AI safety group organising spinning out of EA into its own thing, and b) funded AI safety work becoming more about public and government engagement rather than fairly niche research.
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.