[Kurimo]

It very much depends on where your talents lie certainly. I could not be a nurse, I am squeamish and cannot interact with strangers positively. And so giving is better than doing. But the article expressly recommends people who CAN be nurses, doctors, surgeons, social workers, etc. instead pursue the most profitable jobs they can do instead. That is my disagreement with it.

Using the superman example: despite Superman's obvious aptitude and passion for fighting crime the author would prefer he spend his time turning a crank to make more money to donate to crime fighting efforts. I think that is terrible advice. Further, while SMBC is trying to be satirical (and succeeding I think), the author of the article crops the comic hiding the personal cost to Superman the comic expresses in later panels. And then to get REALLY nerdy with it, if Superman isn't fighting crime in the DC universe, no amount of free energy would matter because Darkseid or Lex Luthor or somebody else only Superman could stop would probably have either conquered or destroyed the earth.

My life has recently been impacted multiple times by talented doctors and nurses who could certainly have done something more profitable with their skills and so I am perhaps reacting more emotionally to this article than is necessary. But telling people not to be doctors and nurses and instead pursue something more profitable because "Money is better than doing good things yourself!" Sounds like the kind of bullshit Lex Luthor tells himself as he vaporizes a small city to ransom Superman into letting him be President.

[BenjaminTodd]

We don't recommend that - the article covers 4 paths to doing good including "direct work" as well as earning to give.

Choose between those two options based on which you'd be best at and the needs of the problems you want to focus on.