Is Altruism = Philonthropy

I don't think of altruism as being completely selfless. Altruism is a drive to help other people. It exists within all of us to more or less extent, and it coexists with all of our other desires. Wanting things for yourself or for your loved ones is not opposed to altruism.

When you accept that - and the point Henry makes that it isn't zero sum - there doesn't seem to be any conflict.

If you find some unused ground, plant some seeds, grow flowers, cut the flowers, and make a beautiful bouquet, what did you “take from others”?

Lots of wealth is not “zero-sum” like you describe, but creates new value/beauty/usefulness from thin air and sunlight.

Wealth creation is not inherently bad. In fact if it improves average quality of life around the world (which has happened overwhelmingly since the Industrial revolution) then it’s overwhelmingly good.

I don’t believe effective altruism is entirely selfless, just as Nietzsche likened the sun’s giving—yet he ultimately went mad. We practice altruism on the foundation of ensuring our own survival; in other words, we prioritize self-interest before aiding others. This isn’t selfishness—it’s a form of self-care.  

From a biological perspective, our ancestors sought advantage and avoided harm, surviving in the wilderness. The dangers of survival forged an instinct for self-preservation, an unavoidable trait that persists to this day. Psychologically, effective altruism can stimulate dopamine secretion in the brain, generating pleasure and a sense of reward. When this reward fades, people might anxiously question whether they’ve been altruistic enough—but at its core, this reflection is still a form of altruism.  

As you said, energy is neither created nor destroyed—or perhaps the same applies to the profits generated by capital. No matter how high global GDP climbs, the economy remains a cycle: the money donated to the impoverished eventually returns to me in some form, and I, in turn, spend it, sending it back into circulation. So, if we don’t overanalyze it, altruism ultimately benefits the self. Holding onto some assets doesn’t make us selfish—it’s a necessity. Prioritizing oneself is also a way of practicing self-love.

No one seriously considers that altruistic action lacks personal interests for the agent. The altruistic agent acts to obtain emotional rewards. These are of various types, and this debate, unfortunately, doesn't appear much in this forum; and it should because if we don't develop the question of altruistic motivation, we will have difficulty in order to increase the number of altruistic agents.

My personal opinion is that the best way to develop altruistic motivation is to consider altruistic action in the context of a lifestyle—a virtue—of zero aggression and one that stimulates impulses of benevolence, empathy, rationality, empathy... We need "saints." A lifestyle of "saintliness" can be more attractive than mere altruistic action motivated by a deontological sense of duty (à la Kant, à la Seneca) or, worse still, by the feeling of guilt for not doing everything possible to remedy the suffering around us.

And don't take capitalism seriously. What creates wealth is science and technology, not capitalism.