In Sam Bankman-Fried’s case, he seems to have let it be a justification for the huge risks and likely criminal actions he took.
There's no amount of money that will satisfy someone like that, even if his EA statements were heartfelt. Why would he give a billion dollars to charities, when he could risk it, flip it into $20B, and give it to charity? Why would he give $20B to charity when he could risk it, and flip it into $150B? etc...
But that would be the rational thing to do...
$1B less donated to charity is only roughly 1/20 as bad as $20B donated to charity is good, because there are also other people donating large amounts. In other words it's not at all like betting everything and ending up homeless if you lose the bet. At $20B vs $150B the catastrophe of losing $20B starts to become more significant, but I would absolutely still take that bet.
*Aside: obviously it was tone-deaf for me to reply to that quoted sentence out of the context in this case of the money being stolen
Good luck finding that limit though, especially when the market seems undefeatable.
Setting aside the case of this crypto conman, is being holier-than-though the valid criticism it feels like - or is that just my instinct to protect my ego, when the guy sitting next to me and earning the same salary donates 100x more much to charity than I do?
dont get fooled by people who think they can put good-ness into a box labelled "giving", I dont believe its that simple.
like the covid vaccines weren't possible because charity, but because science, the two are in no way equivalent. and there is evidence (not proof) from the last 150 years that capitalism enables science at a much higher multiple than charitable giving.
I would characterise both as elite but not upper class (as in, regularly going to old money dinner/rave parties).
I don't know which of the two is more "Effectively Altruistic".. lol.
Nevertheless, I find the anti-parallels with Buterin .. charming. Vitalik is clearly less anti-intellectual, less ambitious (more Ravenclaw than Slytherin), and thus less offensive to the gods.
To me it sounds like a way to justify making more money at all costs under the guise of a moral high ground. It'd feel more honest to do it without the cosplay around it and the "I donate better than you" holier than thou-ness.
I think it's more of a reactionary outburst from people who became wealthy enough to wonder about the purpose of their life and want to detach themselves from the late stage capitalist brand they get as cushy first world living while still reaping all the benefits.
I'm afraid if there were many good hearted people in that movement this single event will also discredit the rest. But maybe it was all a cult, who knows.
In this guy's case it sounds like a handy way to minimize whatever sentence he gets over this because he can argue "he did it out of pure intentions to help the world", which basically counts as insurance / marketing expenses for the scam.