[mr_luc]

That's fantastic! Although personally, while I get a chuckle out of reading that excerpt, I can't actually understand the point of view I'm intended to chuckle at.

I don't want my life's work, or anyone else's, to be engaged in a struggle to change mucky 'institutions and opinions.' Eww! Gross! Honorable, necessary, maybe. (But only 'maybe', I wouldn't assume it about those who claim to be engaged in such a struggle). It's not completely implausible that realpolitik can be creatively fulfilling, worthwhile, and life's calling. But I'd chalk that up to humans being able to imbue even the worst situations with meaning, rather than it being particularly attractive as a life's work.

If I think of that question:

    Suppose [...] that all the changes in institutions 
    and opinions which you are looking forward to,
    could be completely effected at this very instant:
    would this be a great joy and happiness to you?

I'd answer 'yes', and I think a lot of HN readers would too (aside from "Monkey's Paw"-style unintended consequences). I wish we had a safe, abundant world for everyone, where all respected each others' rights -- so we could get on with the best parts of human life.

The best parts of human life are limitless, so the Mills' thought experiment can't touch them: creating, and sharing.

Creation is limitless, and there is no end-game, nor can there be. The question falls apart immediately: "imagine that everything that should be created has been created." It would be nonsensical -- whether in a cave, in the present day, in a 1950's sci-fi future or some (implausibly) transcendent Singularity, there are always things that you don't know, and thus new things you can do with the new knowledge once you acquire it. And thus there will always be new things you can experience and share with others.

Edit: and as a note about EA specifically, so as not to derail one of my favorite recent HN comment sections.

I'm a fan personally, and my experience is that 'expat' living is a good way to help accomplish it, without any particular misery traps (10 years out of the past 18).

Specifically, I align with the 'Our World In Data' take, about how inequality globally is so much more than within rich countries -- so any 'sticky' ways of funneling your money into poorer countries is good, and you don't even need to worry too much about getting scammed, as long as the scammer legitimately lives and spends in a poorer community.

And then if you're actually living in that poorer country, while working in a richer one, you're 'funneling money' there, by and large not competing with the locals (except in things in which there is already effectively global competition, like, say, oceanfront property/rentals). And you can also develop excellent 'local knowledge' in order to give more targeted help, which is rewarding -- but that kind of 'give a kidney' stuff isn't scalable, where remote work is.

[hammock]

> inequality globally is so much more than within rich countries -- so any 'sticky' ways of funneling your money into poorer countries is good, and you don't even need to worry too much about getting scammed, as long as the scammer legitimately lives and spends in a poorer community.

That is a great insight. It’s a big “if” though. A lot of the money skimmed from, e.g foreign aid to Ukraine will go to billionaire oligarchs like Kolomoisky

[mr_luc]

That's why the OurWorldInData essay mentioned that some use charities that focus on 'giving locally', even letting you personally contact and vet people.

An example of skimming I've seen firsthand: large-scale subsidized programs of house construction for poor folks.

The skimming that arguably occurred: the local program administrator's son, both of his woman's kids, several of his ex-wife's kids in another province, all got houses under this program. It's arguably skimming or corruption, because he and his family gained 6 houses from this program intended to help the least fortunate, out of maybe the 20 or so I know were built in the area. 'Arguably', because these people did qualify; they were adults living with other family who legitimately couldn't afford their own houses or rent, it was only an injustice in the sense that it disproportionally benefitted one family in the community.

But all of the money stayed in the area, and mostly in the country, because (in the words of the prefect of police in the movie Casablanca), he was 'only a poor corrupt official'; no one in their family had even attended local universities at that point. The construction and trade workers were local, the materials were local, and his now more-materially-secure family was engaged in economic activity locally.

It's possible, of course, for scammers to organize large-scale fabrication of 'sob stories' and I'm sure it's happened and will happen, but hopefully the scammers are 'sufficiently local'. :)

[dash2]

> you don't even need to worry too much about getting scammed, as long as the scammer legitimately lives and spends in a poorer community.

Then you will have made a criminal in that community richer, which is unlikely to make that community a safer, happier or more self-reliant place.

[mr_luc]

I think that's too simplistic, which is why I used a vague term like 'scammer'.

Giving money to, say, a powerful criminal mob would be bad.

But giving money to someone who is simply dishonest or exaggerating when seeking donations from people looking to give locally? Not such a problem.

Moving money from people in the richest country to people in the poorest country is probably good, if that money gets spent (instead of hoarded) via normal economic activity -- paying people in a community in that poor country -- I'd say, regardless of the morals of the person through which it moved. Relatively small amounts of money can be turned into durable wealth in a poorer country; for instance, it can be the difference between a young family buying/building a house or not.