Advocating for the wealthy class to donate money isn't a new idea. For example, the term "noblesse oblige" was coined two centuries ago. So I don't think EA is a radical concept.
The dilemma of wealth distribution is an ongoing social and political issue, which EA doesn't seem to address. We live in a world of finite resources, and wealth disparity has increased dramatically over the past few decades.
As the article points out, EA advocates preach: "earn to give." Such a phrase implies EA funding comes from people who have worked harder, and who deserve all their riches. But the example of SBF shows that not to be the case.
In the real world, it matters how personal wealth is obtained.
Advocating for the wealthy class to donate money isn't a new idea. For example, the term "noblesse oblige" was coined two centuries ago. So I don't think EA is a radical concept.
The dilemma of wealth distribution is an ongoing social and political issue, which EA doesn't seem to address. We live in a world of finite resources, and wealth disparity has increased dramatically over the past few decades.
As the article points out, EA advocates preach: "earn to give." Such a phrase implies EA funding comes from people who have worked harder, and who deserve all their riches. But the example of SBF shows that not to be the case.
In the real world, it matters how personal wealth is obtained.
great points, Jon, thank you. Indeed it does matter.