> The "ones suffering in 50 years" are theoretical, the ones suffering today are real people.
Not sure what you mean by this. Are you actually suggesting that you think nobody will be in need or crisis in 50 years? What exactly is theoretical about that? I would say compounding from helping someone today is theoretical: it takes no effort at all to find examples of someone being helped just to throw it away, self-sabotage, refuse to participate. If you like charity just for the idea of helping, then I can understand that. But the claim that aid will always be effective, let alone compound, is imo much more of a stretch than claiming that there will still be people needing help in 50 or 100 years (I'd wager for as long as humans exist)
Of course I'm not suggesting people won't be suffering in 50 years, but again that is in the future, it's not today, and that suffering does not yet exist, even if we know it will.
Meanwhile, real humans - not statistics or "examples" as you put it - need help now.
As for the compounding aspect of charitable work, I guess all I can say there is you should do your own research if you want to realize how wrong you are.
Listen I'm not trying to convince you here, you've made clear in your first message that you don't care about anyone other than yourself and your loved ones, and that's your choice to make, but perhaps acknowledge that as a result of this choice, you don't really know much about charitable giving and the work that happens as a result of it.
Yet here you are confidently speculating about it all. It's starting to feel a bit Dunning-Kruger if I'm totally honest about it.. perhaps an opportunity for self-reflection?
You're not making any relevant arguments, just stating your personal position and with a condescending tone at that.
> (A) Put my life potentially at risk and go into the burning building to drag that one person out and save their life. If I die while trying to save that person, then that means my charitable giving stops.
> Or I can (B) definitely not risk my life to save that person, therefore guaranteeing - at least for now - that I can continue to make charitable donations into the future, possibly saving a much larger number of lives.
> If you take a detached/theoretical view of this situation, then (B) seems like the better choice in the long run. I will benefit more people.
> But it also means I make the choice to stand there and watch that real person die when I could have done something about it.
> And I wouldn't be able to do that.
I would do A every day of the week and sleep like a baby every following night, knowing that I'll be safe and sound tomorrow to support my loved ones. You're welcome to do B if you want to, but you yourself acknowledged that it's not the choice that benefits more people in the long run, i.e. the more emotional rather than logically optimal choice. Hence why I said you're not making relevant arguments, just stating that you would do things differently and that you do so out of emotion rather than a logical reason. If you have a logical reason why giving money today is better than letting it compound and then giving more tomorrow, then I'd be interested in hearing it. But if I'm the kind of person to go with A 10/10 times, I think you can imagine I'm not very interested in emotional appeals.
Not sure what you mean by this. Are you actually suggesting that you think nobody will be in need or crisis in 50 years? What exactly is theoretical about that? I would say compounding from helping someone today is theoretical: it takes no effort at all to find examples of someone being helped just to throw it away, self-sabotage, refuse to participate. If you like charity just for the idea of helping, then I can understand that. But the claim that aid will always be effective, let alone compound, is imo much more of a stretch than claiming that there will still be people needing help in 50 or 100 years (I'd wager for as long as humans exist)