I’m going to disagree, and suggest a modified program that I think is more compatible with norms in effective altruism, for two reasons, on substantive, one social. Of course, people can do what they want, and I’m certainly happy to hear that people plan to give later, rather than not giving at all.
But first, the modified program I’m suggesting is to take a giving what we can pledge, and donate 10% of your income, and then dedicate the rest of your disposable income to FIRE. This will lead to a slower achievement of financial independence, but is fully compatible with EA goals and norms, instead of requiring “special dispensation” to do FIRE. Again, there are two reasons I think this is a better plan.
First, I think that those who want to cultivate a norm of caring need to address the immediacy of global needs. Whether you are interested in mitigating global catastrophic risks, or interested in global human welfare, or reducing animal suffering, all of the problems are urgent. The difference between achieving full financial independence in 15 years versus 20 is far less than the difference you make by donating—that’s the entire point of EA. And if you in fact plan to continue working to donate after you achieve financial independence, and to donate even more than 10% to EA causes, you can do this regardless of whether this takes 15 years or 20 to manage. But if you aren’t saving lives or reducing suffering now, you lose the opportunity to affect things in the meanwhile, and for anyone earning a significant enough income to be able to retire in a couple decades, I don’t think that this is an unreasonable tradeoff.
Second, there is a problem that culturally, it’s hard to stay involved in EA without actually doing the things EA suggests. Value drift is common, and problematic, and involvement in the FIRE community is great, but it certainly isn’t reinforcing any of the EA ideas. The immediacy of the giving pledge and the engagement with the community is a mentally healthier way to engage with the problems you care about. Of course, people can and will do what they want. But “I’ll give once I’m comfortably able to not worry about retirement” is a very easy slippery slope to slide down, and the uncertainties of the future will always provide easy justification for waiting longer.
David, how do you reconcile your implication that there is a norm to get a “special dispensation” from with CEA’s claim that EA “doesn’t say anything about how much someone should give”?
I’m going to disagree, and suggest a modified program that I think is more compatible with norms in effective altruism, for two reasons, on substantive, one social. Of course, people can do what they want, and I’m certainly happy to hear that people plan to give later, rather than not giving at all.
But first, the modified program I’m suggesting is to take a giving what we can pledge, and donate 10% of your income, and then dedicate the rest of your disposable income to FIRE. This will lead to a slower achievement of financial independence, but is fully compatible with EA goals and norms, instead of requiring “special dispensation” to do FIRE. Again, there are two reasons I think this is a better plan.
First, I think that those who want to cultivate a norm of caring need to address the immediacy of global needs. Whether you are interested in mitigating global catastrophic risks, or interested in global human welfare, or reducing animal suffering, all of the problems are urgent. The difference between achieving full financial independence in 15 years versus 20 is far less than the difference you make by donating—that’s the entire point of EA. And if you in fact plan to continue working to donate after you achieve financial independence, and to donate even more than 10% to EA causes, you can do this regardless of whether this takes 15 years or 20 to manage. But if you aren’t saving lives or reducing suffering now, you lose the opportunity to affect things in the meanwhile, and for anyone earning a significant enough income to be able to retire in a couple decades, I don’t think that this is an unreasonable tradeoff.
Second, there is a problem that culturally, it’s hard to stay involved in EA without actually doing the things EA suggests. Value drift is common, and problematic, and involvement in the FIRE community is great, but it certainly isn’t reinforcing any of the EA ideas. The immediacy of the giving pledge and the engagement with the community is a mentally healthier way to engage with the problems you care about. Of course, people can and will do what they want. But “I’ll give once I’m comfortably able to not worry about retirement” is a very easy slippery slope to slide down, and the uncertainties of the future will always provide easy justification for waiting longer.
David, how do you reconcile your implication that there is a norm to get a “special dispensation” from with CEA’s claim that EA “doesn’t say anything about how much someone should give”?
EA as a philosophy doesn’t suggest any specific giving level, but there is a community norm of 10%.