I believe that, given my aptitudes, I am best able to make a positive impact on the world by attempting to maximize the money I earn, and donating that.
I’m curious how you came to that belief.
I arrived at the belief primarily instinctively, and am not particularly confident in it; I’d be happy to revise it on the basis of any more data I receive.
My rational is, roughly, that most adequately funded philanthropic organisations have no difficulties attracting talent, and sot the number of “doers” is determined primarily by demand-side factors. Therefore, by becoming a doer, I would be preventing another would-be doer from attaining a job. Whilst it’s possible that this person would go on and contribute in other ways, such as by being a donor, I think it’s very likely that they would not (most people seem to be strongly attracted to personally making a difference.)
Therefore, were my becoming a “doer” to have a positive impact, I would have to do such a better job than the person who has been displaced by me, that it would outweigh the loss of donations that I would otherwise have made. Whilst it would probably would be true that I would be more capable than the person who has lost out on getting a job because of me (supply growing should result in the least-capable losing out most), I don’t believe that I have any major advantage over other people.
Whilst there seems to be no shortage of talented people looking for non-profit jobs, there is always a shortage of money, and my donating would be unlikely decrease anyone else’s donations. So, I feel this is the more effective option.
I think I’m partly also influenced by a heuristic I sometimes use, that of avoiding what seems to be the easy option out. Most people seem to want to be intimately involved with the causes they help, yet there seems to be little justification for this, so I feel compelled to do the opposite. However, it occurs to me that I might in fact be attracted to the status and other benefits of high-paying jobs, so this may be just a rationalization.
I’m much less confident of this conclusion now than when I began writing this comment, which I think is probably a good thing. I’d be interested to hear arguments from people who’ve come to opposing conclusions to me.
Whilst there seems to be no shortage of talented people looking for non-profit jobs, there is always a shortage of money, and my donating would be unlikely decrease anyone else’s donations. So, I feel this is the more effective option.
That’s probably a safe assumption to make in most charitable fields, but not in existential risk reduction. For example, there are not enough qualified candidates for the position of FAI programmer, or to lead the project that Nesov recently suggested.
Compare the following hypothetical scenarios:
There are qualified candidates for an FAI team ready to go, just waiting for sufficient financial resources.
SIAI gets a $1 billion donation tomorrow, but has nobody to hire.
Which is easier to remedy? I suspect 1, because people like Peter Thiel can probably be persuaded to donate significantly more money if only they thought FAI had a more realistic chance of success.
Come to think of it, your main comparative advantage is that you’re young. There are plenty of people in the world who can be donors, but not too many who have realized, at an age like yours, that they should think strategically about how to change the future. Having such a realization can be compared to winning the lottery. It may be that you should aim to be a donor after all, but to do so without thinking very carefully about whether you can specialize in an area that the future will really need, would be to throw away the winning ticket instead of cashing it.
(ETA: The above assumes that the main thing that a young person can do that others can’t (or can’t do as well) is to become a specialist that the future will need badly. But perhaps there are others?)
I arrived at the belief primarily instinctively, and am not particularly confident in it; I’d be happy to revise it on the basis of any more data I receive.
My rational is, roughly, that most adequately funded philanthropic organisations have no difficulties attracting talent, and sot the number of “doers” is determined primarily by demand-side factors. Therefore, by becoming a doer, I would be preventing another would-be doer from attaining a job. Whilst it’s possible that this person would go on and contribute in other ways, such as by being a donor, I think it’s very likely that they would not (most people seem to be strongly attracted to personally making a difference.)
Therefore, were my becoming a “doer” to have a positive impact, I would have to do such a better job than the person who has been displaced by me, that it would outweigh the loss of donations that I would otherwise have made. Whilst it would probably would be true that I would be more capable than the person who has lost out on getting a job because of me (supply growing should result in the least-capable losing out most), I don’t believe that I have any major advantage over other people.
Whilst there seems to be no shortage of talented people looking for non-profit jobs, there is always a shortage of money, and my donating would be unlikely decrease anyone else’s donations. So, I feel this is the more effective option.
I think I’m partly also influenced by a heuristic I sometimes use, that of avoiding what seems to be the easy option out. Most people seem to want to be intimately involved with the causes they help, yet there seems to be little justification for this, so I feel compelled to do the opposite. However, it occurs to me that I might in fact be attracted to the status and other benefits of high-paying jobs, so this may be just a rationalization.
I’m much less confident of this conclusion now than when I began writing this comment, which I think is probably a good thing. I’d be interested to hear arguments from people who’ve come to opposing conclusions to me.
That’s probably a safe assumption to make in most charitable fields, but not in existential risk reduction. For example, there are not enough qualified candidates for the position of FAI programmer, or to lead the project that Nesov recently suggested.
Compare the following hypothetical scenarios:
There are qualified candidates for an FAI team ready to go, just waiting for sufficient financial resources.
SIAI gets a $1 billion donation tomorrow, but has nobody to hire.
Which is easier to remedy? I suspect 1, because people like Peter Thiel can probably be persuaded to donate significantly more money if only they thought FAI had a more realistic chance of success.
Come to think of it, your main comparative advantage is that you’re young. There are plenty of people in the world who can be donors, but not too many who have realized, at an age like yours, that they should think strategically about how to change the future. Having such a realization can be compared to winning the lottery. It may be that you should aim to be a donor after all, but to do so without thinking very carefully about whether you can specialize in an area that the future will really need, would be to throw away the winning ticket instead of cashing it.
(ETA: The above assumes that the main thing that a young person can do that others can’t (or can’t do as well) is to become a specialist that the future will need badly. But perhaps there are others?)