People have a finite amount of money to give, so every dollar is an either/or decision.

Every dollar you spend on a theater donation is a dollar less that you value human lives.

Of course, the same logic applies to candy bars, internet, television, and all the things that being you joy in life.

But much like with investing in stock I don't know for sure a priori which investment will bring the highest return. If I'm 80% sure that charity A is better than charity B (for my definition of 'better) I'll give 80% of my investment to charity A and 20% to charity B.

When comparing mosquito nets versus theater, I don't really think the stock diversification analogy fits at all.

Some of those things (investments) will give you the dollar back later, and might be considered better ideas on that basis.

But that’s what leads to “earn to give”, which is what leads to deciding to become a billionaire and/or give away other people’s money instead.

> when did this become an either/or?

I don't have unlimited resources. I have the privilege of having a surplus that I can redirect to making the world better. EA is a framework for trying to do the most amount of good from the limited resources that I have.

> We can do both.

So, save fewer lives for more theatre seats?

> diversification of one's "ethics portfolio"

I don't understand what that is supposed to mean.