At small levels of expenditure (<5% disposable income) , charitable spending is such a small expenditure that of course it won’t make enough of a difference to negatively impact you enough that you notice.
My strong suspicion is that if existential risk reducers could and wanted to pull off the trick of only devoting 5% of their spare mental energy existential risks, then there would be no problem, either in my case or in the cases of the people I mentioned.
Perhaps there would be a problem with cognitive dissonance, but you could still apply the 5% rule: discount the extent to which you care about humanity as a whole versus near-mode things by a factor of 20.
At small levels of expenditure (<5% disposable income) , charitable spending is such a small expenditure that of course it won’t make enough of a difference to negatively impact you enough that you notice.
My strong suspicion is that if existential risk reducers could and wanted to pull off the trick of only devoting 5% of their spare mental energy existential risks, then there would be no problem, either in my case or in the cases of the people I mentioned.
Perhaps there would be a problem with cognitive dissonance, but you could still apply the 5% rule: discount the extent to which you care about humanity as a whole versus near-mode things by a factor of 20.