And Harvard takes outrageous overhead rates out of donations (from EA charities) to my research. Surely they could let me use more of the money I raised, instead of taking a cut to add to their Scrooge McDuck pile.
Controversially, I feel this outlines one of the main issues with EA. The problems you outline that could be solved aren’t just tractable, they are incredibly legible. There is a clear link between problem, cost and solution.
However, far less measurable is the output of the marginal students who can attend Harvard / the marginal lecturer they can hire etc. - through illegible means could, either themselves or via the impact on other students, produce world altering innovation that achieves far more than using mosquito nets to save people who will remain in destitute poverty.
On the spreadsheet it looks nice as 1 life saved is an easy metric but in reality its achievement is negligible in the context of what was possible.
I have absolutely no problem with this donation.
To compare run a simple thought experiment. Go back to 1800 and have a few million to donate - do you feed slaves and give them nets or do you build the Carnegie libraries, send Darwin on that ship, offer scholarships to Oxford? The former would certainly save more lives in a legible fashion but I’d contend the latter would do far more for humanity long term, including in mortality, than could ever be measured.
Altruists are all grifters seeking the unearned. Ken earned his money, and therefore can spend it on anything he likes. The only thing that's morally repugnant is this article demanding that he lives for the sake of others. If you have earned your money, you don't deserve it, if you haven't earned anything, you deserve everything in virtue of that fact -- that is the soul of the altruist.
Your "large amount of money is going into an even larger money pile -> it doesn't matter" is a rather dubious step. Presumably at some point, the extra money in the system is spent on something. Of course, if the marginal impact is significant, that implies the total impact is really large.
What does a large impact look like for such an institution? It looks like them funding research that years later contributes to making mRNA vaccines or whatever. The research is 1) diverse, covering many topics. 2) long tailed. 3) hard to predict.
It's really hard to tell which research is just soaking up money, and which has a 10% chance of yielding miracles in 20 years. If you want to make a case for low impact, you need to do more than this argument from incredulity.
“Furthermore, the students at Harvard, if they aren’t already a part of the elite, will be when they graduate.”
This is the most troubling aspect to me. It sure seems, now more than ever in my life, that the vast majority of Americans really don’t have much say in how our government and institutions are run. We seem to be on a ride driven by a small minority of people with vast resources at their disposal. Further concentrating this imbalance not only lacks utility, it has negative utility. Honestly, if Griffen had just piled this money in a big stack and burned it, the world would be a better place in 20 or 50 years.
The juxtaposition between this story and one in the Free Press is just stunning:
And Harvard takes outrageous overhead rates out of donations (from EA charities) to my research. Surely they could let me use more of the money I raised, instead of taking a cut to add to their Scrooge McDuck pile.
Controversially, I feel this outlines one of the main issues with EA. The problems you outline that could be solved aren’t just tractable, they are incredibly legible. There is a clear link between problem, cost and solution.
However, far less measurable is the output of the marginal students who can attend Harvard / the marginal lecturer they can hire etc. - through illegible means could, either themselves or via the impact on other students, produce world altering innovation that achieves far more than using mosquito nets to save people who will remain in destitute poverty.
On the spreadsheet it looks nice as 1 life saved is an easy metric but in reality its achievement is negligible in the context of what was possible.
I have absolutely no problem with this donation.
To compare run a simple thought experiment. Go back to 1800 and have a few million to donate - do you feed slaves and give them nets or do you build the Carnegie libraries, send Darwin on that ship, offer scholarships to Oxford? The former would certainly save more lives in a legible fashion but I’d contend the latter would do far more for humanity long term, including in mortality, than could ever be measured.
Perhaps Harvard is the real villain here. Imagine the good they could be doing…
Wow.
Altruists are all grifters seeking the unearned. Ken earned his money, and therefore can spend it on anything he likes. The only thing that's morally repugnant is this article demanding that he lives for the sake of others. If you have earned your money, you don't deserve it, if you haven't earned anything, you deserve everything in virtue of that fact -- that is the soul of the altruist.
Your "large amount of money is going into an even larger money pile -> it doesn't matter" is a rather dubious step. Presumably at some point, the extra money in the system is spent on something. Of course, if the marginal impact is significant, that implies the total impact is really large.
What does a large impact look like for such an institution? It looks like them funding research that years later contributes to making mRNA vaccines or whatever. The research is 1) diverse, covering many topics. 2) long tailed. 3) hard to predict.
It's really hard to tell which research is just soaking up money, and which has a 10% chance of yielding miracles in 20 years. If you want to make a case for low impact, you need to do more than this argument from incredulity.
“Furthermore, the students at Harvard, if they aren’t already a part of the elite, will be when they graduate.”
This is the most troubling aspect to me. It sure seems, now more than ever in my life, that the vast majority of Americans really don’t have much say in how our government and institutions are run. We seem to be on a ride driven by a small minority of people with vast resources at their disposal. Further concentrating this imbalance not only lacks utility, it has negative utility. Honestly, if Griffen had just piled this money in a big stack and burned it, the world would be a better place in 20 or 50 years.
The juxtaposition between this story and one in the Free Press is just stunning:
https://www.thefp.com/p/from-slavery-in-north-korea-to-jeff
I just wanted to point out that he was educated at Harvard, he studied economics and started trading in his dorm room.
I could imagine many people giving back to the school that educated them and gave them such a wealthy life.
I don’t in anyway disagree with anything you have said, it’s true he could have had more impact and they don’t really need the money.
But in order to have more impact, you must start with the question, “how can I spend $300m to have the most impact?”.
I think he just gave a “small gift” as a thank you (small considering his wealth).