I dunno man. I think this piece suffers from a common channel of thought when discussing philanthropy generally, which is that if someone wants to spend their money on yachts, nobody complains, but as soon as somebody tries to do something altruistic, everyone feels like it’s okay to criticize and complain.
If your objection is that billionaire philanthropy gives too much power to billionaires… wouldn’t that apply to all billionaire spending? Really your objection is just that we shouldn’t have billionaires.
If your objection is that billionaire philanthropy could be more effective (it definitely could), I think this observation should be carefully framed so that we don’t penalize people for doing some good, even if they aren’t doing the most good. Those who spend their money on yachts should get more criticism than those who build opera houses.
Figuring out whether money spent on philanthropy is effective is one of the central tenets of effective altruism. Everybody here critiques each other all the time. Why should private billionaires get a free pass?
And the author very much does criticise billionaires spending money on “politicians and votes and social media platforms”. The author is focusing on the philanthropy side because, well, that’s the subject of the article.
Personally I think it is an error (albeit a common one, both among EAs and among EA critics) to offer greater criticism to those who do something, than to those who do nothing. It is good and appropriate to suggest how we can all do better, but if you find yourself criticizing Bill Gates more than Jeff Bezos, I think you’re doing it wrong.
I dunno man. I think this piece suffers from a common channel of thought when discussing philanthropy generally, which is that if someone wants to spend their money on yachts, nobody complains, but as soon as somebody tries to do something altruistic, everyone feels like it’s okay to criticize and complain.
If your objection is that billionaire philanthropy gives too much power to billionaires… wouldn’t that apply to all billionaire spending? Really your objection is just that we shouldn’t have billionaires.
If your objection is that billionaire philanthropy could be more effective (it definitely could), I think this observation should be carefully framed so that we don’t penalize people for doing some good, even if they aren’t doing the most good. Those who spend their money on yachts should get more criticism than those who build opera houses.
Figuring out whether money spent on philanthropy is effective is one of the central tenets of effective altruism. Everybody here critiques each other all the time. Why should private billionaires get a free pass?
And the author very much does criticise billionaires spending money on “politicians and votes and social media platforms”. The author is focusing on the philanthropy side because, well, that’s the subject of the article.
Personally I think it is an error (albeit a common one, both among EAs and among EA critics) to offer greater criticism to those who do something, than to those who do nothing. It is good and appropriate to suggest how we can all do better, but if you find yourself criticizing Bill Gates more than Jeff Bezos, I think you’re doing it wrong.