• @swlabr
    link
    English
    129 months ago

    Summary point 5 is fun.

    I conclude that the rate of criminal behavior amongst major philanthropists is high

    Great!

    which means that we should not expect altruism to substantially lower the risks compared to that of the general population,

    Ok, not super clear what “the risks” are here. One interpretation is that they are saying “just because someone donates money doesn’t mean they aren’t a criminal”, which is correct. But it’s not clear! Anyway.

    and that negative impacts to EA’s public perception may occur independently of whether our donors actually commit crimes (e.g. because even noncriminal billionaires have a negative public image).

    So close! Why do “noncriminal” billionaires have a negative public image? It’s almost as if legality isn’t the decider of morality!

    Perhaps one day EAs will gain class consciousness and a sense of morality beyond an uncritical elision of ethics via utilitarianism; we aren’t there yet.

      • @bitofhope
        link
        English
        89 months ago

        While true, the majority of them (in terms of humans, not dollars) are merely capitalists of the “temporarily embarrassed” variety.

        The thing about the 1% is that they’re a really small part of the population. Less than 5% of all people are in the top 1% richest people. Extremely rich people may be overrepresented in EA, but I doubt they are overrepresented enough to beat all the prole EAs in a fistfight should they all suddenly become militant communists or something.

      • @swlabr
        link
        English
        79 months ago

        my bad. When I said “class consciousness” I meant a full mental transformation to radical communism, words are difficult