nah, 80k h is about how to be a better wagecuck and give all your money to some scam charities like a good goy

80kh is website written by and for students of very expensive American universities.

Are you such? If not, you may well ignore it. It is worth about as much as a single old shoe otherwise (without the other shoe – not a full pair).

>>5595

I should trust it is a scam since you have used the word "goy" in your post, yes? Thank you for this contribution.

>>5616
Wrong thread?

>>5609
I wouldn't say the authors are American. If anything, you could say the content is mostly written by Oxford graduates and graduates of Australian unis.

>>5632

That's not the only one

>>5594
Mooching off of family? Ability to do that probably depends on circumstances and if they're not actually rich you could wear out your welcome pretty quickly.

Failing that, have you considered suicide? Because that's my current backup plan - open to other suggestions though.

>>5594
>I'm not sure I even care about effective altruism anymore
Why the fuck would you ever care about "effective altruism" to begin with?

>>5653
It's a logical end result of caring about ethics, depending on the system you pick

>>5654
No it's not. Only caring about people sufficiently similar to yourself is the correct system of ethics. This is what humans have always used and it's what built our civilization.

>>5655
All systems are the correct system when viewed from the inside. Some people use other systems, founded on other arbitrary fundamental principles.
I'm sure you were already aware that the prototypical rationalist ethical system is less discriminate utilitarianism. Are you complaining about that, or do you genuinely not understand how effective altruism is a result of that?
You can still practice effective altruism within your system, by finding the most efficient way to help people sufficiently similar to you.

>>5656
Utilitarianism is fundamentally retarded regardless of its scope.
1)You can't calculate the utility function in any real setting. This is just swept under the rug by pretending that first order effects are all that matters and that you can discard the rest. There is no mathematical basis for this! You can't pretend that summing utility across some Africans that you give mosquito nets to is even remotely the same as summing utility across all conscious beings inhabiting your light cone. You can't even determine the sign of this total utility. Actually most interesting systems are chaotic so it's not even a matter of not enough information or computing power. So every practical application of utilitarian ideas ends up privileging some people over others in arbitrary ways.
2)You have to pretend that you can somehow measure utility that individuals experience and compare it. You can't do it in practice so you end up with something that you again have no mathematical basis to claim even approximates the things you postulate are important.
Utilitarianism is one of those ideas that only an intellectual could take for a reasonable one. It's pretends to be able to quantify things it can't actually quantify in a futile attempt to appear "rational". It is to morality as Le Corbusier is to city building.

>>5657
I agree that a good utility function is (for now) a platonic ideal that can only be uncertainly and somewhat arbitrarily approximated.
I don't think that a system being chaotic has to make it impossible to apply a utility function. It adds variance, but it doesn't necessarily preclude expected values.
And I don't think that such an approximation has to be useless. To be useless, it's not enough if it's imperfect - it has to do worse at satisfying the platonic utility function than other workable systems. I think QALY/$ estimates are good enough to be useful.
You can't prove with 100% certainty that it's good, but that goes for everything.

>>5656
>You can still practice effective altruism within your system, by finding the most efficient way to help people sufficiently similar to you.
The most altruistic thing I can do according to my own system of ethics is to fatten my own bank account, so it looks like I'm already an effective altruist. Good to know. Next time one of you guys starting preaching to me I'll tell him this.

>>5671
That's just effective, not altruism.

>>5671
Yeah, you're really stumping the cucks by defaulting to base selfishness like every other fat idiot.

>>5675
This, but unironically. Altruism towards people who resent it and wouldn't reciprocate even if they could hurts you and those like you. Base selfishness is far healthier.

>>5594
The rational way to escape is not to have been conceived by two ignorant selfish assholes who were too poor to allow their children a shot at a decent lifestyle.

Try the lottery?

Harold S. Geneen probably wouldn't recommend the management path for you personally. Nevertheless, you might wanna see what he has to say about the nature of clawing your way up out of the calamity you were born into, so *if* you get hit with some good advise about what you should be doing, you will fucking get out there and get to it.