Effective altruism does not imply utilitarianism. Utilitarianism (on most definitions) does not imply hedonism. I would guess less than 10% of EAs (or of animal-focused EAs) would consider themselves thoroughgoing hedonists, of the kind that would endorse e.g. injecting a substance that would numb humans to physical pain or amputating human body parts, if this reduced suffering even a little bit. So on the contrary, I think the objection is relevant.
Loosely related, A Better Explanation Of The Endowment Effect
Thanks for the post. I agree that this is an important question. I do, however, have many disagreements.
Hundreds of economists study this topic. Why not just read some books or papers?
This Berkeley Dad TRIPLED His Karma With One Weird Trick (Mods HATE Him!):
This is a good start but you really need to implement differential kerning. Lofty words like 'Behoove' and 'Splendiferous' must be given the full horizontal space commanded by their dignity.
I've updated the style to work at the new URL lesswrong.com.
I strongly agree. Despite appearances, I wouldn't say someone with 10 bitcoin today has "won" at all. Winning means getting more of what you ultimately care about, like goods and services. You only win if you convert your bitcoin into goods or dollars at the right time. I am reminded of "buy low, sell high": an empty phrase that can sound deceptively like good investment advice.
Okay, this project overshot my expectations. Congratulations to the winners!
Ord (2014) is all I'm aware of and it's unpublished.