Part of me thinks we should spend years reflecting on lifelong decisions before making them; hence, we ought not encourage young people (e.g., university students) to sign the GWWC pledge.
However, a bigger part of me thinks locking in altruistic desires to mitigate future selfishness is *exactly* what we should be doing. Some argue that we shouldnât make life-long decisions as young people because our preferences and values may change. Yet, to me, this is all the more reason to take the GWWC pledge; it is precisely because our altruistic tendencies might weaken that we should lock those values in. I want to do things that increase the likelihood of future-Sam still wanting to help others as much as current-Sam.
Separately, starting to donate when youâre young can make the process much easier! I began giving 10% when I got my first job at 16, and it has never felt aversive or difficult. I donât think âIâve earnt ÂŁ100, so now I have to give up ÂŁ10â, instead, I just view it as earning ÂŁ90. I imagine that if I started this practice aged 40, I would long for that extra ÂŁ10 much more.
This is a great postâthanks, Frances! This comes up a lot in my conversations about EA, and I really appreciate the clarity youâve brought to it.
One line that really stood out to me was:
I think it can be useful to acknowledge that the answer to this question is a clear yes. When I talk to people about triage, I always try to acknowledge that, ideally, we wouldnât have to make these trade-offs at all. Our ultimate goal isnât to help only those above a certain thresholdâitâs to help everyone.
We prioritise not because we think some lives matter more, but because we wish we could help everyone.