I never quite know how to engage with sociological analysis of this sort. It attacks longtermism not by its arguments as a philosophical stance, but by its function as a social group.

This is however, how the world works. If someone powerful proclaims an altruistic motive for a move that just happens to increase their power (like Elon entering MAGA and trying to reduce the power of government), alarm bells should be going off.

Moreover, Longtermism should not be central to our society. Longtermism provides a convenient justification for all sorts of monstrosities, simply because it says all of us are less important than trillions of people in the future. That's not something that democracy really is compatible with.

I propose that no more than 1% of our societal resources go towards long-term thought and planning. That's much more than we do today, but it's less dangerous to humans currently alive.

This post invites the old critique of earning to give:

You just tell yourself that, because you want to feel good about actually acting selfishly.

The correct conclusion from this premise would be, if it is even tru, to donate even more capital to those in need via GiveDirectly .

My view on this: I think governments do foreign aid for a variety of reasons, some are selfish (like providing contracts for domestic companies), some are more altruistic (though a more developed Africa benefits us all through better market access and more efficient use of resources, as well as fewer global health crises and political crises to deal with).

And a different way of looking at it: Some amount of foreign aid is going to be directed towards altruistic goals. Anyone should want that money to be used as effectively as possible.

That's right, but in the original meaning of the word, it's actually not against EA at all. Us too would prefer sustainable interventions that lead to a better system and that do not have hidden costs. And I think rigorous RCTs that measure general markers are a good tool to find such interventions.

One of EAs anti-examples, Play Pumps, failed because it turned out not to be holistic at all.

I feel like effective aid policy is at a similar stage to what animal well-being was at a few decades ago. People would agree that animal well-being is good, but they wouldn't feel it's important.

Maybe we need an org that does targeted public campaigns on how a certain aid organization is wasting money, combining that with pushing them to a commitment to more effectiveness. This approach has worked with some meat-intensive companies, and it might also work for non-profits if it can threaten their donor base.

What advice do you have to other filmmakers who are trying to spread ideals of effective charity on YouTube? What should they focus on?

Thanks for the great video! I think it did a great job at bringing the usual MrBeast emotional content to a charity whose impact is difficult to film.

Where does Beast Philanthropy get its funding from? Is it just revenue from BP videos (incl. Sponsors), or money from MrBeast, or also other philanthropists?

I have too many EA T-shirts from conferences. What should I do with them?

On further googling, there is actually an active proposal by the Commission!
The proposed directive introduces a new type of legal form (the "European cross-border association"), which will make it a lot easier for non-profits to operate across the entire EEA.

However, at this stage, the issue of taxation is not addressed. The European Parliament is expected to work on the proposal before the election next year, so now may be a good time to call further attention to this :)