EA is more than just giving- people who work careers based on EA principles have every right to call themselves EAs, even if they never donate a single penny
I don’t want to judge individual people, but it is my opinion that many people call themselves EAs although they shouldn’t. This could become a problem in future, if it becomes common knowledge that most “bailey EAs” are actually not “motte EAs”.
If someone is developing a malaria vaccine, it sounds reasonable to consider them an EA even if they don’t donate a penny, because their research can save millions of lives. If someone makes millions without donating, in order to reinvest and make billions, in which case they will donate the billions, it also makes sense to call them an EA (or perhaps “future EA”).
But it is known that people’s values often change as they age. For example, people who in their 20s believe they would sacrifice everything for Jesus (and sign abstinence pledges and whatever), can become atheists in their 30s. In the same way, it is completely plausible that people in their 20s sincerely believe they would totally donate 10% of their future income to EA causes (and sign pledges)… and change their opinion in their 30s when they start having an actual income. I am not saying this will happen to all student EAs, but I am saying it will happen to some. (I would expect the fraction to grow if EA becomes more popular in mainstream, because this feels like something most normies would do without hesitation.)
Thus I am in favor of having a norm “you have to do something (more than merely self-identifying as an EA) to be actually called an EA”. If it depended on me, the norm would be like “actually gives 10% of income, and the income is at least the local minimum wage”. But I am not an EA, so I am just commenting on this as an outsider.
EA is more than just giving- people who work careers based on EA principles have every right to call themselves EAs, even if they never donate a single penny
I don’t want to judge individual people, but it is my opinion that many people call themselves EAs although they shouldn’t. This could become a problem in future, if it becomes common knowledge that most “bailey EAs” are actually not “motte EAs”.
If someone is developing a malaria vaccine, it sounds reasonable to consider them an EA even if they don’t donate a penny, because their research can save millions of lives. If someone makes millions without donating, in order to reinvest and make billions, in which case they will donate the billions, it also makes sense to call them an EA (or perhaps “future EA”).
But it is known that people’s values often change as they age. For example, people who in their 20s believe they would sacrifice everything for Jesus (and sign abstinence pledges and whatever), can become atheists in their 30s. In the same way, it is completely plausible that people in their 20s sincerely believe they would totally donate 10% of their future income to EA causes (and sign pledges)… and change their opinion in their 30s when they start having an actual income. I am not saying this will happen to all student EAs, but I am saying it will happen to some. (I would expect the fraction to grow if EA becomes more popular in mainstream, because this feels like something most normies would do without hesitation.)
Thus I am in favor of having a norm “you have to do something (more than merely self-identifying as an EA) to be actually called an EA”. If it depended on me, the norm would be like “actually gives 10% of income, and the income is at least the local minimum wage”. But I am not an EA, so I am just commenting on this as an outsider.