Apparently medieval people owned quite a bit of property, possibly more than the average person today (though not the same in technological value of course):
Probably depends on when you look. I think the point stands that are drawing a false comparison to serfdom. Tax obligations are not the same as serfdom
You're making a valid point, but not in favor of taxing owner-occupied homes, but in favor of treating collateralized homes as commercial property. I'd be okay with that as long as the basis for taxation is the volume of the mortgage.
I'm always curious why effective altruists attract so much sneer and disdain when the topic comes up.
At best they are just people trying to donate money to effective charities like mosquito nets in Africa. At worst, some might be wasting their money on animal welfare or AI safety. This doesn't seem like enough to fuel the kind of backlash I see.
I can't speak to anyone else's sneers and disdain, but mine come from all the motivated reasoning surrounding them. One example:
'The Effective Ventures Foundation (EVF), which defines effective altruism as “using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible”, decided £14.9m of its cash would be best spent buying Wytham Abbey, a 15th-century Grade-I listed manor house near Oxford.'
There were a lot of explanations about why that was the most effective use of funds, but every single one reads like motivated reasoning to me.
The Sam Bankman-Fried debacle of pay off politicians and gamble the customer deposits to become very rich because EA probably falls in that category and gave it a bad name.
I think it's got two components - first, people don't actually understand the tenants of mainstream EA. For instance, some people think that one of the core principles of EA is "make as much money as possible at any cost", which is incorrect.
Second, EA is a small movement with an above average amount of crazy people (IE someone who does think you should make as much money as possible at any cost), who then basically monopolize the media attention. This then feeds into the first component.
EA is in a fairly bad spot where nobody seems to be really attempting to understand it or meaningfully engage with it's ideas, instead just parroting the same few talking points (SBF anyone?)
Is it just me or is this a pattern that's been repeating throughout our society. Let me know if you see this too.
Step one somebody comes up with a philosophy that would be a big improvement on what we've all been doing.
Step two people start living it and it seems to work for them. It seems to make them happy and it seems to make the world a better place.
Step three dark tetrad types show up and hijack the good thing as cover for the bad things they're doing. It's a wolf in sheep's clothing type maneuver.
Step four people who have never engaged with the philosophy recognize that there's lots of dark tetrad people hiding under it and start using the philosophy as a heuristic for bad person.
Step five the authentic practitioners start to question whether the good thing was really good because people treat them like they're bad for it.
Anytime someone takes any (supposedly) moral action which is not part of the status quo, they are implicitly claiming the moral high ground. There are 3 possible responses:
1. Take no action -- but if they're right, you cede the moral high ground
2. Imitate them -- which also cedes the moral high ground, since they got there first
3. Undermine their claim; prove they're actually acting in self-interest.
I believe this is why so many people love(d) to hate on vegans.
> Anytime someone takes any (supposedly) moral action which is not part of the status quo, they are implicitly claiming the moral high ground.
I think this is an unhealthy belief. More likely, people don't know what is or is not moral, because their decisions are plagued by self-interest, limited knowledge, and the influence of peer pressure and tradition that may or may not have gotten things right.
So it is more about people taking calculated bets, say on a share price. They don't know for sure if they think the price will go up or down, they are guessing, but not randomly guessing. There is an underlying investment thesis that may or may not be correct.
So a contrarian investor, may be a genius or a fool. Time will tell. Most people, when they see a contrarian investor, decide the prudent approach is "wait and see", because they have their own thesis about a different set of stocks.
Everyone is trying to figure this out as best as they can. To think that you have the moral high ground by holding some niche beliefs is a foolish way of living.
It doesn't have to just be "wait and see", although I do believe that all truth is revealed in the fullness of time, but it could just be humility, e.g. X believes Y is the way to go, I don't see why X believes that, and I could discuss this with X or even debate vigorously, but at the end of the day, we don't know who is more moral until much later.
One very interesting thing about the idea of "last judgment" in the gospels is that there are several parables devoted specifically to it, and the thing that unites all of them is that all groups of people are completely surprised at what they are judged by. The good don't know what good they did, and the bad don't know what bad they did. The group that has strong opinions about what good they did end up being completely wrong. The group that is praised for doing good don't even remember doing good.
You don't need to believe the parables, but there is another way to it. I don't know how old you are, but once you are of "mature age", you may well notice that the things you thought were important when you were 20 years younger were much, much less important than what you think of today. And 20 years later, the same holds true as well. So you can view these parables as extrapolations of human ignorance and the increasing recognition of that ignorance with age especially when it comes to moral matters.
Partly because we don't see all ends, since we can't tell the future, so we don't know what ends up in the long run being a good course of action, and partly since our judgments are tainted by self-seeking and a desire for self-elevation. It is not just some people that want to feel better than others. Everyone wants that, whether they admit it or not. That taints all of our moral beliefs.
So in that environment of pervasive ignorance and self-deception, what do you do? You go according to your own conscience, arguing that while you may be completely wrong, at least you are not trying to outsmart yourself. But expect, whether in the last judgment, or as time passes, to radically update your beliefs, especially about what is and is not moral. So you go with your own conscience but don't try to apply your judgment to others.
By the way, the first murder recorded in Genesis, of Cain killing Abel, was basically a beef between vegetarians and meat eaters. God commanded man to eat herbs and not meat -- it is only after Noah that God allows man to eat meat. But Abel gave a meat offering to God, a shelamin offering, or one in which you eat the meat and God gets the fat, and Cain saw that Abel was munching on meat, and then God praised Abel. Cain was absolutely certain that Abel was in the wrong, and that Cain was in the right. And he was absolutely certain that God was wrong for banning meat eating and then praising Abel. That festered and festered until one day Cain murdered Abel, effectively sacrificing Abel like Abel sacrificed the sheep. And then when God came to Cain to ask "Where is your brother?", Cain replied with "Am I my brother's shepherd?" -- the answer being a resounding yes, since he slaughtered Abel like a shepherd slaughtered sheep. This clearly shows that killing an animal is the same kind of thing as killing a man, and yet it also shows that God praises those who eat the meat offering, and also that whenever you judge someone for doing something, you end up guilty not only of the same thing, but the same thing enlarged. By the way, this first murder in Genesis 4 happened immediately after the fall in Genesis 3, which occurred when man ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That is, he is able to decide for himself what is good and what is evil. And immediately, that judging of good and evil leads to murder because of feelings of being wronged.
These are all hard lessons for how human beings approach morality, that is we use it as a mechanism to lift ourselves above others and to condemn others for wronging us, and we also completely misinterpret it. This is a universal thing, I am not trying to judge one group or another. If your conscience tells you not to eat, then don't eat.
Aha! I suspected you were religious from your first response, since it seemed to hinge on being granted perfect moral clarity in time. I don't personally believe that, but I agree that moral truth is difficult to find in our lifetimes, and it's well to constantly question and update one's beliefs, as well as respecting and maintaining an open mind towards others.
As an aside, I was raised Christian, and recently I tried re-reading Genesis as an adult atheist. There's a lot of poetic justice. The underlying theme seems to be "People do lots of terrible things, but you shouldn't punish them, because God will." I guess that Iron Age tribal shepherds were a pretty violent bunch and that's what they needed to hear.
That's how I understand it: a movement encouraging people to donate their wealth to good causes which save and improve lives.
However, there's some who predict an existential future risk such as an AI apocalypse. If that's the case, why save a child's life today when we'll all be killed by AI tomorrow? Critics would call this funding pet projects rather than altruism.
But you can even further down this line of thinking. If you're a billionaire and see yourself as the only hope of saving humanity from extinction, why donate any of your wealth? You should be doing the opposite, gathering as much wealth and power as possible. Taxes and laws that get in your way are impediments to the salvation of humanity.
I'm pretty sure most of the criticism is for folks in the latter groups. I wish there were different words to distinguish them better, because I like the idea of encouraging charity but somehow a handful of billionaires have poisoned the word altruism.
It's a way for the wealthy to feel like they're doing good by collecting money. They tend to twist the tenets to favor "what you're currently doing is good, actually" even if "what you're currently doing" is itself unethical, like modern adtech. The stated goals and principles of EA are one thing; the actual practice of it is another
In short it is because they have influence. There is a difference between sending $1 to Africa instead of America and sending millions. There is a difference between an AI safety researcher fantasizing about AI hacking everything on the planet and their AI models telling me I can't look for bugs in my code.
You may do that with honesty and just be a useful front for the heads behind the curtain. In their calculations you are still the value of 32 prawns or something.
Any conspiracy has simple goals. Control, power, money sometimes as a means to the first two. It’s not even conspiratorial right now to assess that EA members go for these. Not all of them, but the ones that matter in this discussion.
I think a possible explanation is, they support billionaires giving away money. So you get a rare alignment of people who'd rather see poor people die than see support for billionaires, and people who'd rather see poor people die than see billionaires have fewer superyachts. United they're a powerful force.
It's a fairly common talking point that EA is bad because it's too friendly with billionaires. I admit I would struggle to find an example of somebody openly celebrating preventable deaths of poor people, but the large numbers of lives saved by EA-funded interventions don't generally figure in these people's calculus.
Cause they produced Dam Bankman Friedman and people like him.
Cause somehow their idea of best altruism ends up amounting to "earn as much money and power with little regard to how, because so that you can use them for good in the future in a very top down way".
I've been on HN about as long as I've been an EA, over which period I've donated more than half my income. I work at a biosecurity nonprofit, trying to reduce the risk we all die in a bioattack.
Then, I have some sincere questions. No, wait. First, my sincere compliments, both for your work and your giving.
Now, questions:
In your view (which I will listen to, because you're actually an EA), is the "wait until later to be more effective" actually a part of EA? Or is that a separate thing that calls itself by the same label?
If it's the same thing, it sounds like you don't act that way. Do you not buy the "later" logic? If not, why not?
I hang out with a lot of EA friends and I have never heard anyone advocate for it.
The concept is called "patient phlithoropy", apparently about 1% of EA donations go to such funds.
There is no pope of EA that sets doctrine, so anyone can do and say what they want.
I have heard a similar argument that you dont need to sell everything you own and donate it all, because a steady X% per year is better than a lump sum and then homelessness. Or that it makes sense to spend on a college degree so you can earn and donate more later. Both make sense to me.
That said, basically every philanthropic org makes some degegree of "wait until later to be more effective". The gates foundation or churches dont try to spend every penny they have in the current year.
EA is a bunch of people who have a similar way of looking at how to apply our resources and effort to making the world better, but even within EA there's still a ton of disagreement over what better means and how to go about getting there.
The idea of waiting until later is typically called "patient philanthropy". The argument is something like:
1. People matter equally regardless of when they exist.
2. Money you invest could be far more money in the future.
3. Giving opportunities will be about as good in the future as they are today.
4. Therefore if you save to donate later you can do a lot more good.
This often looks like putting money in a Donor Advised Fund to lock in the "this has to go to charity" while still letting it grow, and then later deciding where to donate it.
It's not a common position within EA, and isn't one I hold (so I may not be fully fair to it). The main objection is to point 3: there are actually a bunch of reasons to expect that money donated today will go further than money donated later. The big one, from my perspective, is that we are increasingly creating more powerful AI systems, and we're close to making ones that are smarter than almost everyone. This is very different from anything people have done before, and could have extremely long term consequences (extinction, loss of human control over the future, locking in values that on reflection aren't great, etc).
I could see a different argument against 3. Let's say you give some money now that lifts some people out of poverty. Those people don't raise their kids in poverty, which changes their kids' position, which means that their kids don't grow up in poverty, and so on. So money given now can have a compounding effect in peoples' lives, affecting more people in the future than just the people it affects today.
Yes! This sort of compounding effect is also a potential reason to prefer giving sooner. But it is important to be clear-eyed about the extent to which compounding is really happening: while it's a story we all want to believe, there's also substantial potential for regression to the mean.
By the way, in my harsh comments about EA, I think I was mainly arguing with the "patient philosophy" (and the people who hold it), which was my impression of all of EA.
I'm not really an expert on EA. I just want to understand the public sentiment because it is increasingly part of the political moment, to the point the president is tweeting about it and running a PR campaign against them.
According to AI, the biggest EA charity is GiveWell, which spends about 600 million per year. 95% of the money on low-cost high-impact global health programs like mosquito Nets and vitamins for children.
There is also open philanthropy, which gives about 500 million per year With a wider perspective. Roughly 50, 40 and 10% go to Global Health, Existential Risks, and then Animal Welfare in that order.
That said, I'm not really trying to argue the case. If the simple reason is that people have characterized EA based on SBF, and that's how they think about these things, then that is a complete answer.
> Show us the counterexample, then. Preferably more than one.
The thousands who donate to charity like Against Malaria Foundation or direct cash transfers, and many who pledge to donate a large percentage of their income?
It is using words to accomplish goals. Get shit done.
The exact formula will change depending on the scenario. Maybe it is a prompt email, maybe it is getting a beer and giving someone a pieceof your mind. Most important, it is knowing when to do which one.
This is also how it works for humans too.
What portion of human art produced in 2025 or 1925 do you think was fresh and novel, compared to derived and repetitive?
The same is true for science and Engineering.
What matters is if you have a method of sorting through the repetitive trash
reply