Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

OP here. Your assuming I'd stay in tech to arbitrage the wage gap to give altruistically. You discount that maybe working in tech isn't what makes me happy (disclaimer: I like my current gig because of the people I get to work with, but nothing is forever), farming seaweed from my 41 foot catamaran (now depreciable as a business expense if commercially farming seaweed) might make me happier after working in tech for 15 years, and that I'm saving up to eventually leave the tech industry for living on a sailboat with my family.

> but the typical conclusion would be "effective altruism indicates I should stay in tech and give money to helping fisherman transition to seaweed farming."

Don't make assumptions. Life is meant to be enjoyed, and we work for a third of our lives. Perhaps some of us don't want to do the same work for our entire lives.

Lastly, tech isn't how I would give altruistically. I'd trade options and futures and donate the profits. The impact would be orders of magnitude higher than donating my hourly/salary wages.

I'm not who you were replying to, but he wasn't necessarily making an assumption. There is a philosophical theory named "effective altruism" which includes tenets such as cause prioritization, cost effectiveness and comparative wealth to (hopefully) allow the most good to be done the most efficiently.

In amongst those tenets is the precept of comparative wealth, quoted here:

> Many effective altruists believe that, as formulated by Peter Singer, "if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it".[18] Anyone with an income of above $52,000 PPP is in the 1% richest people globally.[19] Therefore, many effective altruists donate a significant portion of their income to highly effective charities, since doing so would not cause them to give up important purchases.

In short, if you're making six figures in tech, it is generally more charitable to keep doing the tech that you're doing and donate more, and if the tech work you're doing isn't a net negative, you'll be doing more good by donating your tech largesse to a seaweed farmer instead.

You assumed OP wanted to be an optimally efficient altruist - but this wasn't suggested anywhere. If you read his above reply he explains briefly why he is still in tech and elaborates a bit on his goals.

The only assumption that I made was that when erichocean said something that began with a social buzzword and ended parroting the theory that reflects the definition of that social buzzword, that he was referring to the actual theory defined as "effective altruism":

> effective altruism indicates I should stay in tech and give money to helping fisherman transition to seaweed farming

Offtopic, but since when did contextual assumption become something people weren't supposed to do?

Question : what kind of altruist can I be if don't make "six figures in tech" ?

What are your thoughts on sea farming?

http://greenwave.org/3d-ocean-farming/

could you tell me more about using a boat for seaweed farming?

The hard part is figuring out how to make the plough float.

https://medium.com/invironment/an-army-of-ocean-farmers-on-t...

Very well put. :)

Appreciate it. I comment only to bring perspective.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com