Mostly just changing old habits, plus some anticipated missing of distinctive desired tastes. Itâs not an unreasonable ask or anything, but Iâd much rather just donate more. (In general, I suspect thereâs insufficient social pressure on people to increase our donations to good causes, which also shouldnât be âso effortfulâ, and we likely overestimate the personal value we get from marginal spending on ourselves.)
(In general, I suspect thereâs insufficient social pressure on people to increase our donations to good causes
I think in general if we agree to a ballpark of â10% donations is enough to satisfice some goodness thresholdsâ, and also to âIt would be good for social pressure to exist for everyone to do at least threshold amount of goodâ, I think it raises various considerations.
10% makes sense to me as a schelling point (and I think the tables that scale by income bracket are also sensible).
But if the threshold amount of good would be âDonate 10%, aim for an impactful career, become veganâ (which is what I feel the social pressure inside EA is pointing towards), I think that is already a significant ask for many people.
I think it is also important to note that some people are more motivated by trying to maximize impact and offset harm, and some people more motivated by minimizing harm and satisficing for impact. (Of course a standard total utilitarian model would output that whatever maximizes your net impact is best, but human value systems arenât perfectly utilitarian.)
How do âdonate 10%, become vegan, aim for an impactfulâ, and âdonate 30%â, and âdonate 20%, aim for an impactful careerâ compare in effectiveness as norms? I think this is pretty hard to estimate.
What kind of social pressure are you pointing here? Is it more in the direction of âdonate 30%â or âdonate as much as you can and aim for an impactful career?â Or do you mean social pressure in the wider society, and not within the EA community?
(Fwiw I think people underestimate the value of effective marginal spending on themselves, when considering areas of spending where there is space for significant extra value (Like purchasing more free time.). People plausibly overestimate the value on some other things, especially if one doesnât do spending introspectiont.)
Itâs mostly not anything specific to going vegan. Just the general truism that effort used for one purpose could be used for something else instead. (Plus I sometimes donate extra precisely for the purpose of âoffsettingâ, which I wouldnât otherwise be motivated to do.)
Mostly just changing old habits, plus some anticipated missing of distinctive desired tastes. Itâs not an unreasonable ask or anything, but Iâd much rather just donate more. (In general, I suspect thereâs insufficient social pressure on people to increase our donations to good causes, which also shouldnât be âso effortfulâ, and we likely overestimate the personal value we get from marginal spending on ourselves.)
I think in general if we agree to a ballpark of â10% donations is enough to satisfice some goodness thresholdsâ, and also to âIt would be good for social pressure to exist for everyone to do at least threshold amount of goodâ, I think it raises various considerations.
10% makes sense to me as a schelling point (and I think the tables that scale by income bracket are also sensible).
But if the threshold amount of good would be âDonate 10%, aim for an impactful career, become veganâ (which is what I feel the social pressure inside EA is pointing towards), I think that is already a significant ask for many people.
I think it is also important to note that some people are more motivated by trying to maximize impact and offset harm, and some people more motivated by minimizing harm and satisficing for impact. (Of course a standard total utilitarian model would output that whatever maximizes your net impact is best, but human value systems arenât perfectly utilitarian.)
How do âdonate 10%, become vegan, aim for an impactfulâ, and âdonate 30%â, and âdonate 20%, aim for an impactful careerâ compare in effectiveness as norms? I think this is pretty hard to estimate.
What kind of social pressure are you pointing here? Is it more in the direction of âdonate 30%â or âdonate as much as you can and aim for an impactful career?â Or do you mean social pressure in the wider society, and not within the EA community?
(Fwiw I think people underestimate the value of effective marginal spending on themselves, when considering areas of spending where there is space for significant extra value (Like purchasing more free time.). People plausibly overestimate the value on some other things, especially if one doesnât do spending introspectiont.)
What do you think it is about going vegan that would prevent you from donating more? Iâm still not sure of the causal link.
Itâs mostly not anything specific to going vegan. Just the general truism that effort used for one purpose could be used for something else instead. (Plus I sometimes donate extra precisely for the purpose of âoffsettingâ, which I wouldnât otherwise be motivated to do.)