Hacker News Reader

Comment by Anderkent | Hacker News Reader

One thing that confuses me in the conclusion of the article is the assumption that you can either be a doctor, or you can donate to charity and get much more impact. Porque no los dos?

(i have no idea how much doctors are paid; is it not a good career path from a financial perspective?)

View on HN

The whole philosophy is silly. They advocate high paying careers (which tend to be exploitative ways to get money) and ignore the moral hazard of well intentioned people turning out to consume that income later. They inore that a smart person in a "mundane" public service / charity job might develop experience and connections that lead to a massive novel improvement to that sector.

It's not evident from this particular post, but overall we put a lot of emphasis on the "career capital" you get out of different options (the extent to which they put you in a better position to have a positive impact in the future).

https://80000hours.org/career-guide/basics/

We also think "corruption risk" should be taken very carefully, which is why we advocate making a public pledge of your intention to donate, and being part of a community.

We also don't think you should take a high-earning career if it causes significant harm.

One of their counter-arguments to your second sentence is that if you, the ethically-minded person who will donate a significant portion of your income, aren't in that position at the potentially exploitative job, odds are someone else will be who isn't ethically-minded. On the other hand, if you were to go work aid on the ground in Africa, it's likely that you, who maybe has a valuable skill-set capable of earning more, could be replaced by another person who wants to work in aid.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com