Second, the GWWC pledge uses the phrase “for the rest of my life or until the day I retire”. This is a very long-term commitment; since most EAs are young (IIRC, ~50% of pledge takers were students when they took it), it might often be for fifty years or more. As EA itself is so young (under five years old, depending on exact definitions), so rapidly growing, and so much in flux, it’s probably a bad idea to “lock in” fixed strategies, for the same reason that people who take a new job every month shouldn’t buy a house. This is especially true for students, or others who will shortly make large career changes (as 80,000 Hours encourages). People in that position have very little information about their life in 2040, and are therefore in a bad position to make binding decisions about it. In response to this argument, pledge taker Rob Wiblin said that, if he changed his mind about donating 10% every year being the best choice, he would simply un-take the pledge. However, this is certainly not encouraged by the pledge itself, which says “for the rest of my life” and doesn’t contemplate leaving.
EA is new, but charity and altruism have been around for a while and will continue to be important. Besides, if someone really needs or wants money they will break the pledge. It’s not legally binding. The wording is just to make it a stronger, better commitment.
EA is new, but charity and altruism have been around for a while and will continue to be important. Besides, if someone really needs or wants money they will break the pledge. It’s not legally binding. The wording is just to make it a stronger, better commitment.
How does it do that? Is that effect stable under conditions where people don’t see the pledge as a binding promise?