Imma
Bio
I work as Software Tester and donate a part of my income.
I got into EA in 2012.
Posts 1
Comments92
I am looking forward to pick a charity once I received an allocation and weigh in the opinion of others and myself. It may not be to my preferred cause, but I still have the freedom to pick a charity within the cause.
That's a great way to learn.
I can see myself recommending EH to beginner donors, donors who haven't thought through their cause prioritization yet, and donors who are very thoughtful relative to their budget.
Yes, but at a different margin.
I live in a culture where working part-time (even among people who are healthy and are not parents, and have comfortable office jobs) is quite common. I sometimes feel that I need to justify myself that I choose to work full time. People talk about their vacations and hobbies all the time. That can trigger FOMO, but I do a lot of fun things myself too. My bar for unpaid leave is high (twice in my career a month in between jobs to find a new place and move).
Reducing my work hours from 40 to 32 would increase my happiness slightly but reduce my donation budget by a lot. I DO feel obliged to maintain my ability to work 40 hours. It is sustainable for me. Sometimes I struggle to work 40 hours and I feel bad about myself. As long as this recovers quickly, it's fine.
I DO NOT feel obligated to work more than 40 hours on my day job. Why:
- cultural reasons
- overworking is discouraged by my colleagues
- longer presence at work does not make pay rises and promotions more likely
- I tried and failed: experienced productivity loss and other issues when I worked more.
Note: for me "being the change I want to see" is actually working 40 hours rather than 32, given the circumstances I am in. YMMV.
Signed up. I am a little concerned about voters who don't think through their cause prioritization carefully enough and the causes being not granular enough so voter can't indicate their priority well.
You could have "wild animal welfare", "alternative proteins","fish and invertebrate welfare", "improving wellbeing on farms" and "reducing animal consumption" instead of just "animal welfare". That makes everything more complex though.
Thank you, Luke, for your contribution to what GWWC has become today... with so many pledgers and and all the local initiatives I have seen appear around me. It is the community I feel most at home in (of all EA-adjacent groups).
I wish all the best for you and your son (I had the honor to meet him in a recent video call).
Congratulations, Vincent!
262.5 kilometers, that's a LOT!
There was virtually no wind early in the morning, which was also the reason I started so early. Later in the day it would be windier and I knew from the training that with too much wind the balance becomes very difficult.
I remember that you were concerned about the wind (we met at the Tien Procent Club event). How was this later on the day? Or do you have perfect wind-balancing skills?
(have not watched the video fully). I agree with you.
Multiple things can be true at the same time
- People who live in global poverty are are very poor
- Many people in developed countries are among the top 10-1 percent richest globally and don't realize that they comparatively rich
- If these people donate a bit, they can help extremely poor people by a lot.
- Living in relative poverty in rich countries is hard - even if people are globally "rich". (I don't have experience with that myself, but I have consumed a bit of media on relative poverty in my own and nearby countries in Western Europe, out of curiosity. I might still be completely wrong when I imagine what it's like). Some features of a rich society make living in relative poverty even harder. For instance, sharing a small house with a large number of people is made illegal.
It's good when people know these things!
I don't know where you live, but donating $10k while being on the top ~20% percentile globally sounds a lot. It does not help to donate so much to be unable to afford your living costs. It is simply not sustainable. Maybe donating a small bit is feasible. If donated well, a tiny amount already help people a lot, and I find donating very fulfilling. It also helps creating a culture where giving is normal, and not something weird.
Wealth is distributed insanely unequally. Billionares exist. They can donate much more with a much less sacrifice to themselves. They should (and pay taxes), do so thoughtfully, and keep their ego's and individual preferences on the background.
Your comment makes me smile :)
FWIW: I moved back for reasons fully in line with my (mixture of altruistic and non-altruistic) values and for kickstarting the Dutch EA community I would really really assign the credits to other people. Big thanks to them.
I agree with Jason though, in general terms.
2 small donations through Effektiv Spenden.
Unfortunately I will not move a lot of money this year, nor will I spend a lot of time thinking about my donations. But I am happy that I can do at least this little bit.
* I thought that, if everyone with an income similar to mine would do this, the climate would be in a better state, but I was wrong. I quickly fact-checked this. This article on nature.com says "The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that an annual investment of $2.4 trillion is needed in the energy system alone until 2035 to limit temperature rise to below 1.5 °C from pre-industrial levels.". I understand from the article this includes funding from governments and companies. I am not going to disclose my income and my donation budget here, but I can say that my donation is much less than a fair share of this 2.4 trillion. (It may be, if my donation is unusually cost-effective). - apparently it's damn hard to fix climate change.
** there may be difference between funding gap that the org believes they have themselves, and the funding gap that ACE thinks the org has. I mean the latter.