#73 – Phil Trammell on patient philanthropy and waiting to do good

Mar 17, 2020

Phil Trammell, an economics researcher at Oxford's Global Priorities Institute, dives into the intriguing world of patient philanthropy. He argues that delaying charitable giving can amplify the impact of donations over centuries, potentially turning $1,000 into millions through strategic investments. The discussion touches on how future generations will possess knowledge we lack today, enhancing charitable effectiveness. Trammell also tackles the tension between immediate giving and long-term investment, especially in light of urgent global issues like COVID-19.

Ask episode

AI Snips

Chapters

Books

Transcript

Episode notes

ADVICE

Give Now or Later?

Consider if you should donate now or later, or work now or later.
This is a high-level way to think about resource allocation.

INSIGHT

Wait for Pivotal Moments

The present moment is unlikely to be the most impactful time to give.
Wait for a more pivotal moment in the future for maximum impact.

INSIGHT

Stock Market Returns

The US stock market has returned 7% annually over the past century.
Consider this when deciding whether to give now or invest and give later.

Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode

Get the app

Capital in the Twenty-First Century

Thomas Piketty

In this book, Thomas Piketty examines the historical dynamics of wealth and income inequality from the 18th century to the present. He argues that when the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of economic growth, it leads to a concentration of wealth and significant social and economic instability. Piketty's analysis is based on extensive historical and comparative data from over twenty countries, challenging the notion that free market capitalism naturally reduces inequality. He proposes a global system of progressive wealth taxes to mitigate these inequalities and protect democratic values. The book is a groundbreaking work that reorients our understanding of economic history and the inherent contradictions of capitalism[1][4][5].

Algorithms to Live By

The Computer Science of Human Decisions

Brian Christian

Tom Griffiths

In 'Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions', Brian Christian and Tom Griffiths illustrate how algorithms used by computers can be applied to various human problems. The book covers topics such as the optimal stopping problem, sorting, caching, and randomness, providing practical advice on decision-making, managing time and resources, and understanding human cognition and behavior. It emphasizes the importance of calculated risks, breaking down problems into manageable parts, and embracing randomness and uncertainty in decision-making processes.

Reasons and Persons

Derek Parfit

Derek Parfit's "Reasons and Persons" is a landmark work in contemporary philosophy, profoundly impacting discussions on personal identity, ethics, and rationality. Parfit challenges traditional notions of the self, arguing that our sense of personal identity is less coherent than we assume. He explores the implications of this for our moral obligations, particularly concerning future generations. The book delves into the complexities of decision-making under uncertainty, examining how we should weigh our present interests against the potential consequences of our actions for the future. Parfit's rigorous analysis and thought-provoking arguments have had a lasting influence on various fields, including ethics, political philosophy, and decision theory. His work continues to stimulate debate and inspire new research.

Stubborn Attachments

Tyler Cowen

To do good, most of us look to use our time and money to affect the world around us today. But perhaps that's all wrong.

If you took $1,000 you were going to donate and instead put it in the stock market — where it grew on average 5% a year — in 100 years you'd have $125,000 to give away instead. And in 200 years you'd have $17 million.

This astonishing fact has driven today's guest, economics researcher Philip Trammell at Oxford's Global Priorities Institute, to investigate the case for and against so-called 'patient philanthropy' in depth. If the case for patient philanthropy is as strong as Phil believes, many of us should be trying to improve the world in a very different way than we are now.

He points out that on top of being able to dispense vastly more, whenever your trustees decide to use your gift to improve the world, they'll also be able to rely on the much broader knowledge available to future generations. A donor two hundred years ago couldn't have known distributing anti-malarial bed nets was a good idea. Not only did bed nets not exist — we didn't even know about germs, and almost nothing in medicine was justified by science.

ADDED: Does the COVID-19 emergency mean we should actually use resources right now? See Phil's first thoughts on this question here.

• Links to learn more, summary and full transcript.

What similar leaps will our descendants have made in 200 years, allowing your now vast foundation to benefit more people in even greater ways?

And there's a third reason to wait as well. What are the odds that we today live at the most critical point in history, when resources happen to have the greatest ability to do good? It's possible. But the future may be very long, so there has to be a good chance that some moment in the future will be both more pivotal and more malleable than our own.

Of course, there are many objections to this proposal. If you start a foundation you hope will wait around for centuries, might it not be destroyed in a war, revolution, or financial collapse?

Or might it not drift from its original goals, eventually just serving the interest of its distant future trustees, rather than the noble pursuits you originally intended?

Or perhaps it could fail for the reverse reason, by staying true to your original vision — if that vision turns out to be as deeply morally mistaken as the Rhodes' Scholarships initial charter, which limited it to 'white Christian men'.

Alternatively, maybe the world will change in the meantime, making your gift useless. At one end, humanity might destroy itself before your trust tries to do anything with the money. Or perhaps everyone in the future will be so fabulously wealthy, or the problems of the world already so overcome, that your philanthropy will no longer be able to do much good.

Are these concerns, all of them legitimate, enough to overcome the case in favour of patient philanthropy? In today's conversation with researcher Phil Trammell and my 80,000 Hours colleague Howie Lempel, we try to answer that, and also discuss:

• Real attempts at patient philanthropy in history and how they worked out
• Should we have a mixed strategy, where some altruists are patient and others impatient?
• Which causes most need money now, and which later?
• What is the research frontier here?
• What does this all mean for what listeners should do differently?

Chapters:

Rob’s intro (00:00:00)
The interview begins (00:02:23)
Consequences for getting this question wrong (00:06:03)
What have people had to say about this question in the past? (00:07:22)
The case for saving (00:11:51)
Hundred year leases (00:29:28)
Should we be concerned about one group taking control of the world? (00:34:51)
Finding better interventions in the future (00:37:20)
The hinge of history (00:43:46)
Does uncertainty lead us to wanting to wait? (01:01:52)
Counterarguments (01:11:36)
What about groups who have a particular sense of urgency? (01:40:46)
How much should we actually save? (02:01:35)
Implications for career choices (02:19:49)

Producer: Keiran Harris.
Audio mastering: Ben Cordell.
Transcriptions: Zakee Ulhaq.