If your goal is to maximize your own benefit, then you're not really doing charity, so this comment is rather irrelevant.

No, it's not. Any interaction you have in the world can be measured against a counter-factual of interacting with the world in such a way to improve the plight of others.

Life pro-tip: your utility is correlated with the utility of a poor person in Africa. No really, it is. Climate change, war, disease, famine -- these things are directly connected to global poverty. And they are going to affect your life too, no matter where you live, no matter how insulated from them you feel in the developed world.

Separate from your argument, I find your lead-in of "life pro-tip" here to be offensive and condescending. It implies that you are an accomplished professional at living, while 'natalyarostova' is but an unthinking amateur. Did you intend it this way? Or was it meant to be humorous? Or does it serve another purpose that I'm missing?

In my experience, people who proudly evince callous indifference to the suffering of others are usually one or more of a) privileged, b) sheltered, or c) quite young. In other words, naiveté. Rarely is it due to actual, willful malice. So yes, I meant it.

My answer was a rarely honest report on my actual interactions with the world. We live in a time where give well estimates something on the order of a few thousand dollars can save a life, through malaria donations etc. How much of my income do I actually donate to these people? About 5% I guess. How much would I pay for my own longevity? Way more than that.

Would you? If given the option between extending your life to the age of 200 through yearly payments of $10,000 -- or instead donating that money to save countless lives a year, which would you do? Maybe you would donate it, I don't know you, and I won't presume the answer. But is it a callous indifference to pick yourself instead? Maybe it is, and if so, I'm callously indifferent.

We could play with those numbers though, to see how you would value an additional year of your life vs. saving a year for one of the world's poor. Would you value them the same? It's only natural to value your life, and your family's life, higher than others. What's the number where it's not callous indifference? It's worth thinking about, although I don't think the answer to these questions is pure nihilism or anything, we should definitely work to improve the world, and certainly donate more than we do now.

But the point I'm arguing against is that this doesn't mean we also need to put on hold work to improve longevity of our lives.

(It's also worth noting that this entire argument is far more nuanced and second order than the simpler one I offered above, which is that holding this business to a different standard than, say, Facebook, doesn't make sense. Any time you choose to start a business or work, you can always instead choose to go work for a firm with a mission to help the world's poor.)

As for your previous claim that it's in my direct interest to support the world's poor, that's true, but it's also not weighing it against the appropriate benchmark. The appropriate benchmark being what else could I do with that money that would benefit me.

Here's what I don't understand. You are trying to convince someone that they are being "callously indifferent to the suffering of others" by telling them that "their utility is correlated with the utility of a poor person". Sounds like you both seem to have comparable goals, just that you believe that your "way" of accomplishing the goal is superior (i.e. help others to help yourself, rather than just helping yourself)

At risk of violating some HN etiquette about memes, "pro-tip" is a word of fuzzy and common meaning since it was memed back in the ancient era of memes ("Pro-Tip: To defeat the Cyberdemon, shoot it until it dies.")

This is how most people work. They value their own lives and their own happiness over that of others. They will gladly buy their luxuries and let dozens of people die as long as they don't have to see them suffer. We all know this.

Just don't fool yourself. The reason we value our own happiness over the lives of others is because we are weak. That's something we have to live with, but it doesn't make it good.

>You could say the same thing about any other startup.

And I do!

I don't know the answer to that. Am I weak? Is it wrong that I'm on a vacation right now, when I could have donated that money instead? Some EA say just donate 10% or so of your money and don't feel bad, which is a wonderful social convention, but it is just a convention.

If you say the same about other startups, then at least you're being consistent, and it's the inconsistency that irks me.

I don't know if I'm weak or if I should be comfortable with my selfishness. I donate, but not as much as I could. I'm not sure I'll ever know the answer. I find that wrestling with the question, at least, prevents me from going down the path of buying luxury goods and signalling, so I guess it's somewhat useful.

Serious question: where do you draw the line? At what point does life stop being a personal experience between life and death and start becoming a min-maxing of maximal utility on the planet?

While I totally understand your point, I think that the associated value judgment (you are weak if you value your own happiness over that of others) is misguided. Is strength to be solely associated with selfless altruism? What is the end-game of this ethic?