I am very confused about your number 1 con though! Why would promoting frugality be perceived as the rich promoting their own interests over those of the poor? Isnāt it exactly the other way around?
To the extent that EA is comfortable with people spending large sums of their money on unnecessary things, I think it is open to the āelitismā criticism (think of the discussion around SBFās place in the bahamas). People can justifiably argue: āit is easy to say we should all be donating a lot to charity when you are so rich that you will still have enough left over to live in luxury!ā.
But if EA advocates frugality for everyone, including the super rich, then this seems like a powerful response to the elitism criticism. I would have put this near the top of the pros list!
Thanks for pointing this out! I could have been more clear with what I was saying. For con #1, I meant that people might think the following:
P1. EAs are rich people.
P2. EAs have their own unique set of interests that are different from those of the poor people in their own country.
P3. EAs encourage poor people in their own country to save money so that they can donate money to support the interests of EAs.
C1. EAs are rich people who think their own interests matter more than the interests of poor people in their own country.
C2. EAs are elitists.
In regards to promoting frugality for everyone, I would be curious to see that universe. It seems unlikely that it would take off since it wouldnāt have much value to self-interested agents, and people seem to be generally pretty self-interested (at least in the US). If it comes to exists though, Iāll be excited to live in it!
I think this criticism could apply if we were suggesting moving funds from the ādonationsā bucket of oneās financial decisions to oneās āsavingsā bucket. Less so if we are suggesting moving funds from the āpersonal consumptionā bucket to āsavingsā bucket.
I think I broadly agree with this.
I am very confused about your number 1 con though! Why would promoting frugality be perceived as the rich promoting their own interests over those of the poor? Isnāt it exactly the other way around?
To the extent that EA is comfortable with people spending large sums of their money on unnecessary things, I think it is open to the āelitismā criticism (think of the discussion around SBFās place in the bahamas). People can justifiably argue: āit is easy to say we should all be donating a lot to charity when you are so rich that you will still have enough left over to live in luxury!ā.
But if EA advocates frugality for everyone, including the super rich, then this seems like a powerful response to the elitism criticism. I would have put this near the top of the pros list!
Thanks for pointing this out! I could have been more clear with what I was saying. For con #1, I meant that people might think the following:
P1. EAs are rich people.
P2. EAs have their own unique set of interests that are different from those of the poor people in their own country.
P3. EAs encourage poor people in their own country to save money so that they can donate money to support the interests of EAs.
C1. EAs are rich people who think their own interests matter more than the interests of poor people in their own country.
C2. EAs are elitists.
In regards to promoting frugality for everyone, I would be curious to see that universe. It seems unlikely that it would take off since it wouldnāt have much value to self-interested agents, and people seem to be generally pretty self-interested (at least in the US). If it comes to exists though, Iāll be excited to live in it!
I think this criticism could apply if we were suggesting moving funds from the ādonationsā bucket of oneās financial decisions to oneās āsavingsā bucket. Less so if we are suggesting moving funds from the āpersonal consumptionā bucket to āsavingsā bucket.