Most of you are rich by historical standards, and by the standards of the world. So think carefully about just how “rich” will be “enough” to “actually mean something.”
I’m not sure your standard of wealth is the correct one. Most modern Americans aren’t wealthy enough to hire full-time servants; by that standard of wealth there are probably more wealthy people in India, and were probably more wealthy Americans per capita in the 1920s.
I interpret NN’s statement as follows: “the wealth distribution has a long tail, so that the majority of philanthropic impact is caused by outliers (Extremistan); it’s more important to try to become an outlier yourself than to worry about whether to donate your yearly $50 to Greenpeace”.
Most modern Americans aren’t wealthy enough to hire full-time servants; by that standard of wealth there are probably more wealthy people in India, and were probably more wealthy Americans per capita in the 1920s.
Don’t you think modern household convenience machines are more useful than a servant? Think of electric lights, dishwashers, clotheswashers, personal computers, &c., &c.
money is a stand in for other (harder to quantify) metrics for impact on the future. resource distribution in general would be better if it were allocated rationally would it not? thus we should try to take as much control of resource distribution as we can. In contrast you’re speaking from the perspective of satisfying material wants, by which standard we all already live like kings of other ages.
Most of you are rich by historical standards, and by the standards of the world. So think carefully about just how “rich” will be “enough” to “actually mean something.”
I’m not sure your standard of wealth is the correct one. Most modern Americans aren’t wealthy enough to hire full-time servants; by that standard of wealth there are probably more wealthy people in India, and were probably more wealthy Americans per capita in the 1920s.
I interpret NN’s statement as follows: “the wealth distribution has a long tail, so that the majority of philanthropic impact is caused by outliers (Extremistan); it’s more important to try to become an outlier yourself than to worry about whether to donate your yearly $50 to Greenpeace”.
Don’t you think modern household convenience machines are more useful than a servant? Think of electric lights, dishwashers, clotheswashers, personal computers, &c., &c.
money is a stand in for other (harder to quantify) metrics for impact on the future. resource distribution in general would be better if it were allocated rationally would it not? thus we should try to take as much control of resource distribution as we can. In contrast you’re speaking from the perspective of satisfying material wants, by which standard we all already live like kings of other ages.