31 ms·

Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?

208 points by edward 8y ago

quirkot 8y ago
> Not all of this money was given with the intention of maximising human welfare. Take, for instance, the Make-A-Wish Foundation, which helps children stricken with life-threatening illnesses, by granting “wishes”, such as meeting celebrities or visiting theme parks. The typical wish costs the foundation around $10,000 to fulfil—heartwarming for the recipient but of little help in improving health generally. This pretty much captures my main complaint about EA. Being mindful about your philanthropy is a good thing, but EA seems to turn into shaming people who value things differently. [edit] I would add that the Make-A-Wish foundation has a very significant quality of life impact on the kids AND their support network [edit2] EA = Effective Altrusim (the term was in the original post title, but has been edited out)
- LeanderK 8y ago
  EA? EDIT: Make-a-Wish seems more like a giant pr-machine. Granted it's helping some, but wasting a lot of resources that could be better allocated. I guess I am part of the movement, without ever thinking about it
  - dguo 8y ago
    "Effective altruism is a philosophy and social movement that uses evidence and reason to determine the most effective ways to benefit others." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism
  - ss2003 8y ago
    There is a motivational value in Make-a-Wish. I'm not saying that extensive resources should be committed to it, but if emotional impact of a Make-a-Wish story spurs people to be more altruistic or become childhood leukemia researchers, then it's not wasted money.
    - LeanderK 8y ago
      I have thought about it...but I don't really know whether that's the case. There is no encouragement or any instructions how to help yourself. We aren't all famous singers. The videos are great to watch, but to me it really feels more like a pr-machine.
  - quirkot 8y ago
    It may be useful to consider the Make-a-Wish foundation as a performing arts organization that focuses on a large number of intimate performances.
- Seipaho8 8y ago
  > who value things differently Can you try to formulate those values? > I would add that the Make-A-Wish foundation has a very significant quality of life impact on the kids AND their support network But given the costs per instance that impact is only on a small fraction of all cases. A smaller impact for everyone or one that only materializes in the future would likely generate more utility if you add them up.
  - castlecrasher2 8y ago
    > Can you try to formulate those values? Perhaps your question is phrased poorly, but it appears you're asking OP to rationalize every value a donor has when they donate to an organization like Make-A-Wish. Is that what you meant? If so, where would one even start to answer this question?
    - Seipaho8 8y ago
      Well, I wanted a list of values that, for them, rank higher than human lives. I mean every donation has an opportunity cost, and that cost can be lives not saved. People are implicitly willing to make such tradeoffs. What I am asking is to think about it and make those preferences explicit.
  - quirkot 8y ago
    Here is a value that I have which is counter to ethical altruism: I have a small amount of cash in my pocket, which will (given enough time) purchase junk food with. However, I see a random charity donation box so I put my money in that and feel happy that I've done two good things.
  - michaelt 8y ago
    Can you try to formulate those values? I donate money to the AMF and SCI charities mentioned in the article. But I might also donate to the charity that supports my cousin who has cerebral palsy, because I can see with my own eyes that they're doing good work; and because it's work I'd like to see continue. Or I might donate to the charity that gave me a scholarship when I was younger, to repay them and so other people can benefit like I did. Or I might donate to Wikipedia, because although it's hard to value wikipedia page views in terms of quality-adjusted life years saved, you can surely get a great many page views for your dollar. Or maybe my colleague in work is running a marathon for charity, and although our professional relationship wouldn't be damaged at all if I didn't donate, our professional relationship would be improved if I did; perhaps I see a possibility to leverage better relationships into success at work. Or I might consider that I have fully discharged my moral duty for this financial year by donations I've already made; and hence I can spend money on things that are utterly uncharitable if I feel like it, and spending money on things that are inefficiently charitable is relatively better than that. Or I might donate to a political organisation, because I think I directly benefit from their activism....
- akvadrako 8y ago
  Are you suggesting donors to make-a-wish actually value making one dying kid (and his support network) happy more than saving the lives of several? I doubt that's usually the case because if you consider it for a moment is seems so unfair and cruel. No, it's probably something else that motivates their decision...
  - contravariant 8y ago
    They probably do value spending $10,000 on making one dying kid happy higher than $10,000 worth of medical research. If you claim $10,000 worth of medical research will save the lives of several people then clearly we're doing something wrong with the other billions we spend on medical research.
    - bobcostas55 8y ago
      $10k worth of malaria nets will save a couple of lives.
      - contravariant 8y ago
        That's a fair point, but ultimately people are going to care more about children that are 'closer' to them. You're free to criticize people for this, but it probably won't do you any favours.
        kinsomo 8y ago
        > That's a fair point, but ultimately people are going to care more about children that are 'closer' to them. You're free to criticize people for this, but it probably won't do you any favours. Also, making charity too much about distant problems and far off research outcomes factors out the civic and community-level thinking that actually drives and sustains a lot of charity. It also makes charity solely the domain of experts. Instead of seeing a problem firsthand in your first-world community and reacting to fix it, you have to delegate to someone who you hope knows the highest needs in far off lands.
- specialist 8y ago
  "...seems to turn into shaming people who value things differently." Freedom of association. Why would I (willingly) do business with people working against me?
- Symmetry 8y ago
  There's nothing shameful about donating to the Make-A-Wish foundation. It's certianly better to donate there than to spend the money on booze, video games, fancy clothes, etc or the vast majority of things competing for your money. But you still get far less moral credit for donating there than donating somewhere more effective. And yes, you can count the effects of the Foundation on the kids support network but remember that a kid who dies of malaria also has friends and family who will be affected by their death.
  - castlecrasher2 8y ago
    > But you still get far less moral credit for donating there than donating somewhere more effective. I take issue with this attitude. How is this anything but degrading and shaming those who give their time and money to a noble cause? I frankly don't see how your opinion on efficacy matters, it appears you want to make people feel bad for doing good-but-not-good-enough things.
    - wadfginoi 8y ago
      The Make-A-Wish Foundation is mostly useless. People have a moral obligation to set aside their feelings in order to do the right thing. Giving to the Make-A-Wish Foundation is motivated mostly by a desire to feel good. If you want me to stop saying that, prove me wrong. Calling me mean isn't an argument. If what I say makes people feel bad, the solution isn't to start lying to make them feel better.
      - castlecrasher2 8y ago
        > Giving to the Make-A-Wish Foundation is motivated mostly by a desire to feel good. Me spending $40 to go out to dinner with my wife is motivated by a desire to feel good. Should I instead "set aside my feelings" and spend that on your list of approved charities "in order to do the right thing"? Have you given up all frivolous spending and donate it to causes you believe to be effective? I should have started by saying that it's good that you're thinking of which charities you find to be a more effective target for donations. It turns from thoughtful to unnecessary when you pass judgment on others for giving differently than you would give.
- scarmig 8y ago
  I've never seen a EA advocate berate a donor giving money to the Make-A-Wish Foundation. I do often see people injecting themselves into discussions of EA once they get defensive about their charity choices. The people who seem to be judgmental are those who dislike how EA advocates choose to operate.
- asfgionionio 8y ago
  Oh, moral relativism! How fun! The Make-A-Wish Foundation is terrible. It is impossible to defend it by claiming it does a good job. So instead people fall back on "gosh you're mean" and "stop shaming me!" and "everything's like, totally relative, dude..." Seems you've chosen a combination of the second two. Notice the contradictions in your comment. Effective altruists "value things differently" than you do. They care about efficiency and objectivity. Yet you're criticizing them for it! You can't have it both ways. Either it's wrong to criticize "people who value things differently," in which case it's immoral for you to criticize effective altruists for their values, or it's fine, in which case you have no reason to criticize them. I've never met a genuine moral relativist (at least as most people use that term). I've met lots of people who claim all values are subjective, but never one who actually acts like it. They'll trot out that argument to escape from a tricky spot, but within five minutes they'll be right back to talking about objective morality. I, for one, have no real problem with the Make-A-Wish Foundation. It just isn't a charity. It's an expensive luxury brand of peace of mind.
11thEarlOfMar 8y ago
It's not clear why they see this as a nascent movement. My impression of the Gates Foundation is that it uses the funds it donates in a highly analytical fashion to maximize the 'net positive gain' in the welfare of humanity. First example that comes to mind is their commitment to eradicating polio. This analytical approch been their M.O. for 20 years.
- zimablue 8y ago
  EA has been around for a while and the Gates foundation is the exception not the rule.
- Proven 8y ago
  Where was the science before they screwed up bigly with the mosquito nets?
- jseliger 8y ago
  Effective altruism is well-known among a small number of nerds and not at all known or used in many other sectors. I do grant writing for nonprofit and public agencies, and I just wrote about how little government is (really) interested in it: http://seliger.com/2018/06/01/youre-not-organization-isnt-worried-long-term-grant-evaluations http://seliger.com/2018/06/01/youre-not-organization-isnt-wo... Those of you interested should read the philanthropy chapter in Robin Hanson and Kevin Simler's book The Elephant and the Brain.
- Viliam1234 8y ago
  I guess the new aspect is the attempt to make it a mass movement. Not just something that Gates family does and everyone else goes "well, it's their choice how they spend their own money", but something that average people talk about. Also, the outsourcing of research. If Gates Foundation wants to donate their millions effectively, they can use a part of the budget to find out what are the most effective ways to help. If an average person wants to donate $100, that's not enough budget to also include research. Now the person with $100 can simply read some Effective Altruist websites and follow their recommendations; thus getting the advantage of research they would not be able to finance themselves.
gringoDan 8y ago
For those interested in Effective Altruism, Will MacAskill's book Doing Good Better is a great read that raises a lot of thought-provoking questions. - https://www.effectivealtruism.org/doing-good-better/ https://www.effectivealtruism.org/doing-good-better/
- spectrum1234 8y ago
  Its a great book!
buvanshak 8y ago
I for one, will never trust the rich (Especially when it is clear when they pay people to promote their deeds and paint them an angel). I think what ever they do, they do it to gather more wealth (Even if it is not apparent for the common man). For an example, see how gates foundation tried to operate in India [1]. [1] http://jacob.puliyel.com/paper.php?id=370 http://jacob.puliyel.com/paper.php?id=370
- miscreanity 8y ago
  There are wealthy individuals and organizations that seek to make profit from charitable projects and the example presented is far from the worst; corruption as seen in the Red Cross is one such issue. However, I expect the proportion of those instances relative to genuinely good efforts is overblown thanks to media. The wealthy are wealthy generally because they look to make sustainable models where the goal is to avoid simply throwing resources into a pit just because it feels good to help. Doing that bankrupts everyone - consider a broader analysis before throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he'll eat for life.
  - buvanshak 8y ago
    I cannot make much sense of your comment. But let me expand on my original comment and tell this. The only charitable work that I consider genuine is the one that you does not know about. When you read about the work of a person 'x' of a foundation in papers/media, their work cease to be charity. It is just that the person is gaining something, in return, other than "feeling good" you mention. Superficially, or in other words, as shallow as public perception goes, it will appear as benevolent, and often times, it can be. But there is nothing that guarantees it, since the end result is not of benevolence, but something materialistic or sinister.
    - gowld 8y ago
      If the only genuine charity is invisible, how can we maintain a society with a culture of genuine charity? If charity is secret, it's too easy to simply not do charity, since there are no consequences, neither positive nor negative reinforcement. I have my suspicions about the PR motives of https://givingpledge.org/ https://givingpledge.org/ , but ultimately, doing good in exchange for positive PR (a form of "buying advertising") is a deal I'd take every day.
specialist 8y ago
Sign me up for some scientific rigor in all policy work, journalism. State hypothesis, compare predictions to reality, show your work, cite your sources, peer review. The "replication crisis" touches everything. What I like to call "governance technology". We live in exciting times. I'm irrationally optimistic. Eager to see what happens next.
- VikingCoder 8y ago
  And publish your failures. The part where we don't publish our failures is a huge failing.
  - Vinnl 8y ago
    Maybe apply that specific bit of scientific rigor to regular science as well.
  - jimmy1 8y ago
    And fund opposing research and opposing hypothesis -- we need more than ever diversity of thought. There's no sense in doing all of this science with nothing to challenge it. The best policies or whatever it may be should be able to stand up against it.
- dsjoerg 8y ago
  "Governance technology", awesome term, I'm stealing it, thanks
stevenking86 8y ago
It's mentioned in the article several times, but if you're interested in making some analytically driven donations, quickly, https://www.givewell.org/ https://www.givewell.org/ is the place to start.
ajonnav 8y ago
I would recommend checking out the podcast ‘The 80,000 hours’ if you are interested in this kind of stuff. It’s hosted by Rob Wiblin who is the executive director at Effective Altruism. He talks to very interesting people (mostly academics) about “the world's most pressing problems and how you can use your career to solve them” (taken from his website).
- Bernicus 8y ago
  Just to clarify, Rob is the Director of Research at the nonprofit, 80,000 Hours, whose aim is to help people have high impact careers. There is no organisation called Effective Altruism. Effective altruism is a social movement in the same way that environmentalism is a social movement, made up of many individuals, nonprofits and even for profits, working on different things, of which 80,000 Hours is just one. The podcast is excellent though and I second your recommendation. http://www.robwiblin.com/ http://www.robwiblin.com/ https://80000hours.org/podcast/ https://80000hours.org/podcast/
  - tonfa 8y ago
    Technically, there kinda is an EA foundation: https://ea-foundation.org/ https://ea-foundation.org/ Tho for me it's mostly an umbrella org, that allows to easily donate to orgs following the EA movement (since many of them are not registered in Europe, I wouldn't be able to get tax deductions otherwise).
  - ajonnav 8y ago
    Yes you are right; I meant to say the Center for Effective Altruism.
kingkawn 8y ago
Let’s see how long the reproducibility crisis takes to show up here too
samuelthomas 8y ago
I want to make sure it's said that effective altruism is intertwined with the rationalist movement (Scott Alexander[1], Eliezer Yudkowsky[2], Robin Hanson[3]) and that, among these so called rationalists and the parts of the effective altruist community where they hold sway, there are a lot of advocates of AI risk mitigation research (what this means, who knows). These people see AI as the greatest risk to humanity, if you agree to a very long list of tenuous assumptions and implications. I don't think the one paragraph in this article where this is mentioned does enough to emphasize this part of the community. Many members of effective altruism use it as a front to recruit people into their belief system, which is centered around devotion to / fear of future AIs that exist solely as thought experiments. And while their leaders don't necessarily explicitly endorse it, the communities they foster tend to also be fairly right wing / race realist / misoginistic / bigoted. Many of the people in the rationalist and effective altruist community believe that if they don't help create AI any future AIs will create a hell and punish them in it. Seriously. That is a serious belief. Check out more: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Effective_altruism https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Effective_altruism http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/effective-altruism-is-self-recommending/ http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/effective-altruism-is-self-re... [1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/03/26/book-review-twelve-rules-for-life/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/03/26/book-review-twelve-rule... [2] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3wYTFWY3LKQCnAptN/torture-vs-dust-specks https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3wYTFWY3LKQCnAptN/torture-vs... [3] https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/989535565895864320?lang=en https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/989535565895864320?la...
- Gnuffles 8y ago
  I feel like this criticism is largely unfair. First off, yes, there is overlap between effective altruism and the rationalism community. I think that makes sense when you want to try to use reason instead of intuition to make decisions. I fail to see why you should qualify them as "so called" rationalists. Though besides Yudkowsky (and maybe even him) I honestly haven't heard enough of them to defend them. If you do want to sling in some defamatory remarks at their expense I feel like they should be backed up (or left unsaid), though. You mention that some people see AI as the greatest risk to humanity. Perhaps I misunderstand but the way you phrase this, it sounds like you think this is absolutely ridiculous. If so, why would that be? And what long list of assumptions would you need to agree to? And why would it be bad for there to be a common starting point for discussing this? I think there's a fair amount of uncertainty in how any superintelligent entity would act, so a certainty of AI being terrible seems silly. However, a strong belief that it can pose a large threat seems, honestly, evident. You say people use "AI risk" as a front to recruit people into their belief system. There is so much wrong with this... first off, why is it a front? That implies deception. Secondly, it is one of many facets. The core of EA is the desire to do have a (large) positive impact. If some people think that they can make their impact by working on the AI safety issue, why do you feel the need to portray that as nefarious? Finally, "belief system" sounds incredibly dogmatic. EA is not a church. Yes, there is a set of beliefs that most people in the EA community would ascribe to. But I don't experience EA as some echo chamber where everyone is forced into some kind of mold. Rather, people challenge both each other's and their own ideas. There's inevitably going to be some biases and filters, but your portrayal of EA as a cult (purposefully or not) is inaccurate. As far as EA communities tending to be alt-right... what on earth are you smoking? I help run a local chapter and the focus is highly left-wing. And anyone I've noticed that's slightly more right wing is definitely not of the misoginistic or racist side. I recently listened to an 80000 hours podcast with Bryan Caplan, and noticed he's libertarian. While I think libertarian views are mostly bonkers, at the very least the way his libertarian views showed (e.g. arguing for open borders) are not insane on the level I'm used to from libertarians. Either way, this is an exception. Even if you can list some well known names that also have some strange views, I can say with a high degree of certainty that it is not even remotely representative of the community as a whole, especially not as I've seen it in the Netherlands. FINALLY: I've honestly only ever seen Roko's Basilisk being mentioned on a meme page for EA. So much for taking it seriously.
nandorsky 8y ago
This also assumes that decisions to donate to a cause are driven by logic based on an ROI calculation but they are often driven by emotion, not logic. Donors give to causes they care about and feel connected to. If you grew up homeless for example, you're more likely to give to a cause that helps alleviate homelessness vs buying nets to combat Malaria (where you may have no connection) even if the ROI for donating to buy Malaria nets is higher.
- spectrum1234 8y ago
  Effective altruism is saying one should donate by logic/ROI.
  - nandorsky 8y ago
    The way I read it is people would follow this method if the data was more readily available and the issue is access to data.
    - whack 8y ago
      They are both generally true. In the absence of data, people default towards their emotional connections. Ie, a cancer survivor donating to a cancer charity. But if someone could provide data showing persuasively that you can save 10x more lives via malaria charities, that would often override the emotional appeals for many people. It's much easier to give in to your emotions, when you aren't encumbered by contradictory data.
- CompelTechnic 8y ago
  That is an interesting comparison. If they adopt either an Ayn Rand-style, "all altruism is selfish", or else a cynical, "altruism is just virtue signaling", then promoters of effective altruism should try to market it as sexy. They could develop marketing materials portraying effective altruists as hard-working, hard-partying, sophisticated, game-winning, lady-killing, truly conscientious but aspirational millionaires that have developed such complete mastery over their own lives that they now work toward effective as the last game worth playing. Like a mix between the hunter in "The Most Dangerous Game", Ozymandias from Watchmen, and Gandhi. Or something.
thatfrenchguy 8y ago
GiveWell’s CEO’s compensation is 200k: http://files.givewell.org/files/ClearFund/Meeting_2017_06_06/Attachment_F_Executive_Compensation_Proposal.pdf http://files.givewell.org/files/ClearFund/Meeting_2017_06_06... That, after working at a investment firm and having a BA in religion. Not sure that’s the skills and salary I would trust the use of the word « reason » and « science » with. Having a 200k salary in San Francisco definitely skews your vision of the world.
- castlecrasher2 8y ago
  200k in SF is...not a lot. At all.
  - gowld 8y ago
    Why does the CEO of Givewell need to live in SF?
    - Viliam1234 8y ago
      This is a question that should be taken seriously. I am not sure whether they did or did not. But I can imagine there could be valid reasons. For example, living close to potential major donors could increase the chance of convincing some of them to donate. But this too is a thing that should be measured.
  - mercutio2 8y ago
    I get where you’re coming from, I think, but the way you phrased this I can’t agree with. 200k in SF is vastly less than a bunch of smart techies are making. But it is far, far more than the median SF income, and it is a very livable salary in the Bay Area. We should remember that even though SF is expensive, and tech employees can make much more than 200k, that much money is, in fact, after taxes, a lot of money. Even in SF. The spirit of what you’re saying is, I think, that talented people who have demonstrated organizational/management skills could easily make twice that much. I think that’s true, and I think the $200k salary is reasonable for the role in the organization.
- 8y ago
monadgonad 8y ago
I think the Effective Altruism movement really belies its own values and cause with the fact that one of its own funds is for supporting: > organizations that work on improving long-term outcomes for humanity. Grants will likely go to organizations that seek to reduce global catastrophic risks, especially those relating to advanced artificial intelligence. [1] Yes, an argument can be made that it's important to fund prevention of global catastrophes, as while they're unlikely compared to the immediate threat of malaria, they'll cause much greater damage, thus increasing risk. However, to consider artificial intelligence to be a potential global catastrophe at all, let alone the single one requiring extra funding, is mostly unfounded. We currently can barely even define what the actual risk is, let alone how to mitigate it. It's one thing to walk past homeless people in my city and not give them money, because I know that money could much more easily and effectively safe a life in malaria-ridden parts of the world. I think it's absolutely morally repugnant to walk past them and not give them money, because instead you're paying people to sit around thinking about AI. [1] https://app.effectivealtruism.org/funds/far-future https://app.effectivealtruism.org/funds/far-future
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  Isn’t this just a statement that you disagree either with the relative probability of an AI-related disaster or the relative degree of harm it could cause? It seems harsh to say it’s “morally repugnant” when in the end you’re just saying the way you assign probabilities and degrees of negative outcomes would lead you to invest in a different portfolio of charities or efforts than what this other group would do. (I’m not arguing for or against the correctness of a belief that AI poses attention- and funding-worthy threats. Only that these other people motivated to allocate resources to it have studied the problem in great detail and their sincere belief after looking into it is that it is worth being part of the overall portfolio of charity investment, and this really would (in their sincere judgment) mitigate big-scale harm, no different than fundamental research into global warming or drug-resistant bacteria, regardless of whether lay people can more easily envision the types of harm from those other threats.
  - monadgonad 8y ago
bjelkeman-again 8y ago
This is something close to what I work with. Ten years ago we started an organisation to help international development organisations use IT tools more effectively. In 2012 we took over the development and operation of a field data collection system from Water for People and together with them released it under an open source license. We work with 20+ governments and 200+ international NGOs in providing them with data solutions. In my opinion, using data in international development work to see what is effective and how you can improve the work, has by a surprising number of people working in the sector, not been seen as particularly important. This is changing. The awareness that more and better data, as well as the understanding how to handle the data and working on a sustainable technical infrastructure, has existed for some time in the sector, but has been slow to come to the forefront. At the end of the work with the Millennium Development Goals [1] an independent expert group was set up to give advice to the UN Secretary General [2] and to highlight this problem (Tim O’Reilly was probably the only person you would recognise that was part of the group). But to actually get the sector to change has been very slow progress. An analysis by a group of organisations have identified the underspending on data and analytics that is essentially endemic. [4] They estimate that to be able to track the indicators chosen for the Sustainable Development Goals [4] we need to spend some US$ 350-500 million/year more than we do today. (Not that all the indicators in the SDGs are that easy to measure and track. A colleague in the sector said “Of the full set of indicators (232), 88 are not backed up by available data or a suitable method to gather it, and 55 have some form of method but no data. […] Many of them are bordering on the realm of the unmeasurable”.) [5] However, there is a change coming, but I don’t think it is happening fast enough. My opinion is that we won’t be able to achieve the SDGs for 2030 without data and we are not investing enough. As part of our work we have since 2012 helped 11 governments collect data about water access and sanitation to cover about 130 million people, mainly in West and East Africa, in South East Asia and the Pacific. And we are working with organisations such as UNICEF and WHO, together with governments, to approach this in a systematic way with long term sustainability for the processes and systems that get put in place, but it is an uphill struggle. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals [2] http://www.undatarevolution.org http://www.undatarevolution.org [3] Paris21, UNICEF, World Bank, ODI, Earth Institute, Open Data Watch, Simon Fraser University, UNIDO https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=2017&menu=35 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&ty... [4] https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=2017&menu=35 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&ty... [5] http://news.trust.org/item/20180524172651-1sjk4/ http://news.trust.org/item/20180524172651-1sjk4/
dandare 8y ago
I am a bit skeptical about the "scientific rigor" part. Sure, all charities are not equal and there is a big difference between donating to musical education in the US and curing blindness in Africa. But estimating the impact usually involves a lot of guesswork and quantifying the "quality of life" factors. What is the impact of George Soros' pro-democracy foundations? What is the impact of Amnesty International? What is the impact of me supporting the education of one child in Bolivia via ActionAid?
lacker 8y ago
I think the Effective Altruism movement is great. I was wondering recently what the most effective way would be to donate money specifically to help the less fortunate within California, and unfortunately it is not clear to me how to do it. GiveWell seems to do a pretty good job evaluating charities fighting diseases in poor countries, so hopefully similar operations spring up to evaluate other types of charity as well.
- rumcajz 8y ago
  That's because saving a life in a poor country is cheaper that in rich country. If your goal is no maximize number of lives saved you'd naturally look at poor countries.
jrochkind1 8y ago
Not new, and not helpful in my opinion. For a bunch of reasons, including Goodhart's/Campbell's Law (look em up), and http://prospect.org/article/state-debate-lessons-right-wing-philanthropy http://prospect.org/article/state-debate-lessons-right-wing-...
rbongers 8y ago
I'm probably missing something, but I have some serious concerns about the effectiveness of this approach to charity. First of all, without some coordinated effort to spread out donations, won't some of the more effective charities still suffer? If everyone gives to the top 4 charities, for example, won't the 5th most effective one suffer? I don't believe this movement yet has the traction behind it to have this kind of negative effect, but won't it get worse as the movement grows? Second of all, who decides what is the most effective cause (or who interprets the studies that indicate which cause is most effective)? If I could spend 1 dollar and know it would save 5 lives or prevent 50 people from living with horrible mental illness, I would have trouble deciding which one to give to, even if given empirical evidence as to which is cause is the most beneficial to society. Any field dealing with this many human variables is bound to produce at least some skewed results. To me, it seems like the trolley problem with a limitless number of tracks with different situations. Third of all, some of the causes that are not effective might still benefit from some amount of involvement. The example they give - volunteering at a soup kitchen - is one such example. Say giving to the homeless is effective, but volunteering at a soup kitchen is not. Someone still needs to volunteer at the soup kitchen, even if it's not many people.
- Kalium 8y ago
  I can see you don't miss much. You've made some excellent points! > First of all, without some coordinated effort to spread out donations, won't some of the more effective charities still suffer? This is almost certainly true. However, it's also true that this is the case in any scenario where there are less than infinite resources. The starvation issue is very real today. With that said, I think adherents to EA hope that their movement will incentivize effectiveness in charities. Some might postulate that there are worse possible outcomes than charities competing for effectiveness. > Second of all, who decides what is the most effective cause (or who interprets the studies that indicate which cause is most effective)? If I could spend 1 dollar and know it would save 5 lives or prevent 50 people from living with horrible mental illness, I would have trouble deciding which one to give to, even if given empirical evidence as to which is cause is the most beneficial to society. This is another excellent point! How people pick causes is a real concern. It's also one people face today. I think it's largely still a matter of personal choice and priorities. The EA approach tries to put a framework in place for explicitly reasoning about what people currently tend to do implicitly. It absolutely is a trolley problem with infinite tracks and infinite victims. Yet, we already live that trolley problem. > Third of all, some of the causes that are not effective might still benefit from some amount of involvement. The example they give - volunteering at a soup kitchen - is one such example. Say giving to the homeless is effective, but volunteering at a soup kitchen is not. Someone still needs to volunteer at the soup kitchen, even if it's not many people. Not to nitpick your example, but a sufficiently well-funded soup kitchen could likely afford to hire some of the homeless to staff it. Then it could be free of the need for volunteers and lift people off of having to live on the streets! It wouldn't be many people, but it also seems like it might be preferable to staffing the kitchen entirely with unpaid volunteers. More broadly, you're once again absolutely right. This is a real and pressing concern in a scenario where Effective Altruism becomes literally the only way any person thinks about charity. However, some might postulate that we are not currently in that scenario.
abvdasker 8y ago
I first heard of this movement in the book Strangers Drowning. The book is structured as a varied series of accounts of extreme altruism along with some philosophical discussion of cultural attitudes towards it. This movement appears in one chapter about members of Giving What We Can, an organization of individuals donating at least 10% of their income to charity. The chapter follows one woman who gives away almost all of her six-figure salary every year. I'd highly recommend Strangers Drowning if this sort of thing interests you. It's a fairly short read and made me reconsider how I regard altruism by looking at the most extreme examples of this human impulse. One of the best points the book makes is the surprisingly cynical views towards altruism which prevail in the US.
- ggm 8y ago
  One of the best points the book makes is the surprisingly cynical views towards altruism which prevail in the US. This comment echoes something I have felt for some time. I feel that aspects of the US economic development which root in 'self reliance' have encouraged this. Ayn Randian world views?
  - abvdasker 8y ago
    The book talks about Ayn Rand a bit, but spends more time discussing the damage done to altruistic ideals by Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and much of Freud's work. Freud considered altruism and philanthropy a form of masochistic pathology.
    - ggm 8y ago
      Freud/fraud
norepicycle 8y ago
An entertaining, particularly biting, and horribly shortcoming-riddled statement of the case against EA that nevertheless captures a common set of views: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_elitist_philanthropy_of_so_called_effective_altruism https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_elitist_philanthropy_of_... (This is the "defective altruism" article.) Is there a name for a set of views that are correlated with each other in prevalence, in the sense that they occur together more often than could be explained by chance alone? It's similar to the idea of a syndrome in medicine: "opinion syndrome", perhaps?
- balfirevic 8y ago
  Memeplex maybe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memeplex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memeplex
emodendroket 8y ago
Well, measuring overhead isn't a great way to measure efficacy (trying to game this metric often leads to behaviors that are penny-wise and pound-foolish), but I don't find utilitarianism a compelling moral philosophy and really find the idea of trying to quantify how much good a charity does kind of silly.
- jopsen 8y ago
  Obviously, it's impossible to capture all the variables, but in quantifying the good we do, we value all lives the same, and strive to maximize the good we do. If the EA movement forces big charities to focus a bit more on bang for buck, then that's a win. Perfect efficiency will never be possible anyways.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    I have some experience in the nonprofit sector. While you obviously don't want to see people being cavalier with donor dollars, nonprofits that are obsessed with cost cutting are more effective at scolding people for wanting a chair that isn't falling apart or making a few too many photocopies than they are at their missions.
    - jopsen 8y ago
      Looking at givewells analysis, they don't seem too focused on office supplies, but rather whether the charity did any follow-up studies, how far it scales and what it costs. But the follow-up studies seem far more important, than the per unit cost of mosquito nets.
- casebash 8y ago
  Even if there are things that quantitative measurement can't capture, perhaps we could at least use it to rule out donating to some charities?
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    If you want to answer a question like "who distributes the most malaria nets per dollar?" then quantitative measure is very effective. I don't think that's most questions facing someone who wants to do good, though.
antpls 8y ago
Why is The Economist being upvoted that much lately? I was a subscriber and they were a pain to unsubscribe to. Articles are OK but do not contain actual information or news, imho

208 points by edward 8y ago

> Not all of this money was given with the intention of maximising human welfare. Take, for instance, the Make-A-Wish Foundation, which helps children stricken with life-threatening illnesses, by granting “wishes”, such as meeting celebrities or visiting theme parks. The typical wish costs the foundation around $10,000 to fulfil—heartwarming for the recipient but of little help in improving health generally. This pretty much captures my main complaint about EA. Being mindful about your philanthropy is a good thing, but EA seems to turn into shaming people who value things differently. [edit] I would add that the Make-A-Wish foundation has a very significant quality of life impact on the kids AND their support network [edit2] EA = Effective Altrusim (the term was in the original post title, but has been edited out)

LeanderK 8y ago
EA? EDIT: Make-a-Wish seems more like a giant pr-machine. Granted it's helping some, but wasting a lot of resources that could be better allocated. I guess I am part of the movement, without ever thinking about it
- dguo 8y ago
  "Effective altruism is a philosophy and social movement that uses evidence and reason to determine the most effective ways to benefit others." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism
- ss2003 8y ago
  There is a motivational value in Make-a-Wish. I'm not saying that extensive resources should be committed to it, but if emotional impact of a Make-a-Wish story spurs people to be more altruistic or become childhood leukemia researchers, then it's not wasted money.
  - LeanderK 8y ago
    I have thought about it...but I don't really know whether that's the case. There is no encouragement or any instructions how to help yourself. We aren't all famous singers. The videos are great to watch, but to me it really feels more like a pr-machine.
- quirkot 8y ago
  It may be useful to consider the Make-a-Wish foundation as a performing arts organization that focuses on a large number of intimate performances.
Seipaho8 8y ago
> who value things differently Can you try to formulate those values? > I would add that the Make-A-Wish foundation has a very significant quality of life impact on the kids AND their support network But given the costs per instance that impact is only on a small fraction of all cases. A smaller impact for everyone or one that only materializes in the future would likely generate more utility if you add them up.
- castlecrasher2 8y ago
  > Can you try to formulate those values? Perhaps your question is phrased poorly, but it appears you're asking OP to rationalize every value a donor has when they donate to an organization like Make-A-Wish. Is that what you meant? If so, where would one even start to answer this question?
  - Seipaho8 8y ago
    Well, I wanted a list of values that, for them, rank higher than human lives. I mean every donation has an opportunity cost, and that cost can be lives not saved. People are implicitly willing to make such tradeoffs. What I am asking is to think about it and make those preferences explicit.
- quirkot 8y ago
  Here is a value that I have which is counter to ethical altruism: I have a small amount of cash in my pocket, which will (given enough time) purchase junk food with. However, I see a random charity donation box so I put my money in that and feel happy that I've done two good things.
- michaelt 8y ago
  Can you try to formulate those values? I donate money to the AMF and SCI charities mentioned in the article. But I might also donate to the charity that supports my cousin who has cerebral palsy, because I can see with my own eyes that they're doing good work; and because it's work I'd like to see continue. Or I might donate to the charity that gave me a scholarship when I was younger, to repay them and so other people can benefit like I did. Or I might donate to Wikipedia, because although it's hard to value wikipedia page views in terms of quality-adjusted life years saved, you can surely get a great many page views for your dollar. Or maybe my colleague in work is running a marathon for charity, and although our professional relationship wouldn't be damaged at all if I didn't donate, our professional relationship would be improved if I did; perhaps I see a possibility to leverage better relationships into success at work. Or I might consider that I have fully discharged my moral duty for this financial year by donations I've already made; and hence I can spend money on things that are utterly uncharitable if I feel like it, and spending money on things that are inefficiently charitable is relatively better than that. Or I might donate to a political organisation, because I think I directly benefit from their activism....
akvadrako 8y ago
Are you suggesting donors to make-a-wish actually value making one dying kid (and his support network) happy more than saving the lives of several? I doubt that's usually the case because if you consider it for a moment is seems so unfair and cruel. No, it's probably something else that motivates their decision...
- contravariant 8y ago
  They probably do value spending $10,000 on making one dying kid happy higher than $10,000 worth of medical research. If you claim $10,000 worth of medical research will save the lives of several people then clearly we're doing something wrong with the other billions we spend on medical research.
  - bobcostas55 8y ago
    $10k worth of malaria nets will save a couple of lives.
    - contravariant 8y ago
      That's a fair point, but ultimately people are going to care more about children that are 'closer' to them. You're free to criticize people for this, but it probably won't do you any favours.
      - kinsomo 8y ago
        > That's a fair point, but ultimately people are going to care more about children that are 'closer' to them. You're free to criticize people for this, but it probably won't do you any favours. Also, making charity too much about distant problems and far off research outcomes factors out the civic and community-level thinking that actually drives and sustains a lot of charity. It also makes charity solely the domain of experts. Instead of seeing a problem firsthand in your first-world community and reacting to fix it, you have to delegate to someone who you hope knows the highest needs in far off lands.
specialist 8y ago
"...seems to turn into shaming people who value things differently." Freedom of association. Why would I (willingly) do business with people working against me?
Symmetry 8y ago
There's nothing shameful about donating to the Make-A-Wish foundation. It's certianly better to donate there than to spend the money on booze, video games, fancy clothes, etc or the vast majority of things competing for your money. But you still get far less moral credit for donating there than donating somewhere more effective. And yes, you can count the effects of the Foundation on the kids support network but remember that a kid who dies of malaria also has friends and family who will be affected by their death.
- castlecrasher2 8y ago
  > But you still get far less moral credit for donating there than donating somewhere more effective. I take issue with this attitude. How is this anything but degrading and shaming those who give their time and money to a noble cause? I frankly don't see how your opinion on efficacy matters, it appears you want to make people feel bad for doing good-but-not-good-enough things.
  - wadfginoi 8y ago
    The Make-A-Wish Foundation is mostly useless. People have a moral obligation to set aside their feelings in order to do the right thing. Giving to the Make-A-Wish Foundation is motivated mostly by a desire to feel good. If you want me to stop saying that, prove me wrong. Calling me mean isn't an argument. If what I say makes people feel bad, the solution isn't to start lying to make them feel better.
    - castlecrasher2 8y ago
      > Giving to the Make-A-Wish Foundation is motivated mostly by a desire to feel good. Me spending $40 to go out to dinner with my wife is motivated by a desire to feel good. Should I instead "set aside my feelings" and spend that on your list of approved charities "in order to do the right thing"? Have you given up all frivolous spending and donate it to causes you believe to be effective? I should have started by saying that it's good that you're thinking of which charities you find to be a more effective target for donations. It turns from thoughtful to unnecessary when you pass judgment on others for giving differently than you would give.
scarmig 8y ago
I've never seen a EA advocate berate a donor giving money to the Make-A-Wish Foundation. I do often see people injecting themselves into discussions of EA once they get defensive about their charity choices. The people who seem to be judgmental are those who dislike how EA advocates choose to operate.
asfgionionio 8y ago
Oh, moral relativism! How fun! The Make-A-Wish Foundation is terrible. It is impossible to defend it by claiming it does a good job. So instead people fall back on "gosh you're mean" and "stop shaming me!" and "everything's like, totally relative, dude..." Seems you've chosen a combination of the second two. Notice the contradictions in your comment. Effective altruists "value things differently" than you do. They care about efficiency and objectivity. Yet you're criticizing them for it! You can't have it both ways. Either it's wrong to criticize "people who value things differently," in which case it's immoral for you to criticize effective altruists for their values, or it's fine, in which case you have no reason to criticize them. I've never met a genuine moral relativist (at least as most people use that term). I've met lots of people who claim all values are subjective, but never one who actually acts like it. They'll trot out that argument to escape from a tricky spot, but within five minutes they'll be right back to talking about objective morality. I, for one, have no real problem with the Make-A-Wish Foundation. It just isn't a charity. It's an expensive luxury brand of peace of mind.

11thEarlOfMar 8y ago

It's not clear why they see this as a nascent movement. My impression of the Gates Foundation is that it uses the funds it donates in a highly analytical fashion to maximize the 'net positive gain' in the welfare of humanity. First example that comes to mind is their commitment to eradicating polio. This analytical approch been their M.O. for 20 years.

zimablue 8y ago
EA has been around for a while and the Gates foundation is the exception not the rule.
Proven 8y ago
Where was the science before they screwed up bigly with the mosquito nets?
jseliger 8y ago
Effective altruism is well-known among a small number of nerds and not at all known or used in many other sectors. I do grant writing for nonprofit and public agencies, and I just wrote about how little government is (really) interested in it: http://seliger.com/2018/06/01/youre-not-organization-isnt-worried-long-term-grant-evaluations http://seliger.com/2018/06/01/youre-not-organization-isnt-wo... Those of you interested should read the philanthropy chapter in Robin Hanson and Kevin Simler's book The Elephant and the Brain.
Viliam1234 8y ago
I guess the new aspect is the attempt to make it a mass movement. Not just something that Gates family does and everyone else goes "well, it's their choice how they spend their own money", but something that average people talk about. Also, the outsourcing of research. If Gates Foundation wants to donate their millions effectively, they can use a part of the budget to find out what are the most effective ways to help. If an average person wants to donate $100, that's not enough budget to also include research. Now the person with $100 can simply read some Effective Altruist websites and follow their recommendations; thus getting the advantage of research they would not be able to finance themselves.

gringoDan 8y ago

For those interested in Effective Altruism, Will MacAskill's book Doing Good Better is a great read that raises a lot of thought-provoking questions. - https://www.effectivealtruism.org/doing-good-better/ https://www.effectivealtruism.org/doing-good-better/

spectrum1234 8y ago
Its a great book!

buvanshak 8y ago

I for one, will never trust the rich (Especially when it is clear when they pay people to promote their deeds and paint them an angel). I think what ever they do, they do it to gather more wealth (Even if it is not apparent for the common man). For an example, see how gates foundation tried to operate in India [1]. [1] http://jacob.puliyel.com/paper.php?id=370 http://jacob.puliyel.com/paper.php?id=370

miscreanity 8y ago
There are wealthy individuals and organizations that seek to make profit from charitable projects and the example presented is far from the worst; corruption as seen in the Red Cross is one such issue. However, I expect the proportion of those instances relative to genuinely good efforts is overblown thanks to media. The wealthy are wealthy generally because they look to make sustainable models where the goal is to avoid simply throwing resources into a pit just because it feels good to help. Doing that bankrupts everyone - consider a broader analysis before throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he'll eat for life.
- buvanshak 8y ago
  I cannot make much sense of your comment. But let me expand on my original comment and tell this. The only charitable work that I consider genuine is the one that you does not know about. When you read about the work of a person 'x' of a foundation in papers/media, their work cease to be charity. It is just that the person is gaining something, in return, other than "feeling good" you mention. Superficially, or in other words, as shallow as public perception goes, it will appear as benevolent, and often times, it can be. But there is nothing that guarantees it, since the end result is not of benevolence, but something materialistic or sinister.
  - gowld 8y ago
    If the only genuine charity is invisible, how can we maintain a society with a culture of genuine charity? If charity is secret, it's too easy to simply not do charity, since there are no consequences, neither positive nor negative reinforcement. I have my suspicions about the PR motives of https://givingpledge.org/ https://givingpledge.org/ , but ultimately, doing good in exchange for positive PR (a form of "buying advertising") is a deal I'd take every day.

specialist 8y ago

Sign me up for some scientific rigor in all policy work, journalism. State hypothesis, compare predictions to reality, show your work, cite your sources, peer review. The "replication crisis" touches everything. What I like to call "governance technology". We live in exciting times. I'm irrationally optimistic. Eager to see what happens next.

VikingCoder 8y ago
And publish your failures. The part where we don't publish our failures is a huge failing.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  Maybe apply that specific bit of scientific rigor to regular science as well.
- jimmy1 8y ago
  And fund opposing research and opposing hypothesis -- we need more than ever diversity of thought. There's no sense in doing all of this science with nothing to challenge it. The best policies or whatever it may be should be able to stand up against it.
dsjoerg 8y ago
"Governance technology", awesome term, I'm stealing it, thanks

stevenking86 8y ago

It's mentioned in the article several times, but if you're interested in making some analytically driven donations, quickly, https://www.givewell.org/ https://www.givewell.org/ is the place to start.

ajonnav 8y ago

I would recommend checking out the podcast ‘The 80,000 hours’ if you are interested in this kind of stuff. It’s hosted by Rob Wiblin who is the executive director at Effective Altruism. He talks to very interesting people (mostly academics) about “the world's most pressing problems and how you can use your career to solve them” (taken from his website).

Bernicus 8y ago
Just to clarify, Rob is the Director of Research at the nonprofit, 80,000 Hours, whose aim is to help people have high impact careers. There is no organisation called Effective Altruism. Effective altruism is a social movement in the same way that environmentalism is a social movement, made up of many individuals, nonprofits and even for profits, working on different things, of which 80,000 Hours is just one. The podcast is excellent though and I second your recommendation. http://www.robwiblin.com/ http://www.robwiblin.com/ https://80000hours.org/podcast/ https://80000hours.org/podcast/
- tonfa 8y ago
  Technically, there kinda is an EA foundation: https://ea-foundation.org/ https://ea-foundation.org/ Tho for me it's mostly an umbrella org, that allows to easily donate to orgs following the EA movement (since many of them are not registered in Europe, I wouldn't be able to get tax deductions otherwise).
- ajonnav 8y ago
  Yes you are right; I meant to say the Center for Effective Altruism.

kingkawn 8y ago

Let’s see how long the reproducibility crisis takes to show up here too

samuelthomas 8y ago

I want to make sure it's said that effective altruism is intertwined with the rationalist movement (Scott Alexander[1], Eliezer Yudkowsky[2], Robin Hanson[3]) and that, among these so called rationalists and the parts of the effective altruist community where they hold sway, there are a lot of advocates of AI risk mitigation research (what this means, who knows). These people see AI as the greatest risk to humanity, if you agree to a very long list of tenuous assumptions and implications. I don't think the one paragraph in this article where this is mentioned does enough to emphasize this part of the community. Many members of effective altruism use it as a front to recruit people into their belief system, which is centered around devotion to / fear of future AIs that exist solely as thought experiments. And while their leaders don't necessarily explicitly endorse it, the communities they foster tend to also be fairly right wing / race realist / misoginistic / bigoted. Many of the people in the rationalist and effective altruist community believe that if they don't help create AI any future AIs will create a hell and punish them in it. Seriously. That is a serious belief. Check out more: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Effective_altruism https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Effective_altruism http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/effective-altruism-is-self-recommending/ http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/effective-altruism-is-self-re... [1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/03/26/book-review-twelve-rules-for-life/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/03/26/book-review-twelve-rule... [2] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3wYTFWY3LKQCnAptN/torture-vs-dust-specks https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3wYTFWY3LKQCnAptN/torture-vs... [3] https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/989535565895864320?lang=en https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/989535565895864320?la...

Gnuffles 8y ago
I feel like this criticism is largely unfair. First off, yes, there is overlap between effective altruism and the rationalism community. I think that makes sense when you want to try to use reason instead of intuition to make decisions. I fail to see why you should qualify them as "so called" rationalists. Though besides Yudkowsky (and maybe even him) I honestly haven't heard enough of them to defend them. If you do want to sling in some defamatory remarks at their expense I feel like they should be backed up (or left unsaid), though. You mention that some people see AI as the greatest risk to humanity. Perhaps I misunderstand but the way you phrase this, it sounds like you think this is absolutely ridiculous. If so, why would that be? And what long list of assumptions would you need to agree to? And why would it be bad for there to be a common starting point for discussing this? I think there's a fair amount of uncertainty in how any superintelligent entity would act, so a certainty of AI being terrible seems silly. However, a strong belief that it can pose a large threat seems, honestly, evident. You say people use "AI risk" as a front to recruit people into their belief system. There is so much wrong with this... first off, why is it a front? That implies deception. Secondly, it is one of many facets. The core of EA is the desire to do have a (large) positive impact. If some people think that they can make their impact by working on the AI safety issue, why do you feel the need to portray that as nefarious? Finally, "belief system" sounds incredibly dogmatic. EA is not a church. Yes, there is a set of beliefs that most people in the EA community would ascribe to. But I don't experience EA as some echo chamber where everyone is forced into some kind of mold. Rather, people challenge both each other's and their own ideas. There's inevitably going to be some biases and filters, but your portrayal of EA as a cult (purposefully or not) is inaccurate. As far as EA communities tending to be alt-right... what on earth are you smoking? I help run a local chapter and the focus is highly left-wing. And anyone I've noticed that's slightly more right wing is definitely not of the misoginistic or racist side. I recently listened to an 80000 hours podcast with Bryan Caplan, and noticed he's libertarian. While I think libertarian views are mostly bonkers, at the very least the way his libertarian views showed (e.g. arguing for open borders) are not insane on the level I'm used to from libertarians. Either way, this is an exception. Even if you can list some well known names that also have some strange views, I can say with a high degree of certainty that it is not even remotely representative of the community as a whole, especially not as I've seen it in the Netherlands. FINALLY: I've honestly only ever seen Roko's Basilisk being mentioned on a meme page for EA. So much for taking it seriously.

nandorsky 8y ago

This also assumes that decisions to donate to a cause are driven by logic based on an ROI calculation but they are often driven by emotion, not logic. Donors give to causes they care about and feel connected to. If you grew up homeless for example, you're more likely to give to a cause that helps alleviate homelessness vs buying nets to combat Malaria (where you may have no connection) even if the ROI for donating to buy Malaria nets is higher.

spectrum1234 8y ago
Effective altruism is saying one should donate by logic/ROI.
- nandorsky 8y ago
  The way I read it is people would follow this method if the data was more readily available and the issue is access to data.
  - whack 8y ago
    They are both generally true. In the absence of data, people default towards their emotional connections. Ie, a cancer survivor donating to a cancer charity. But if someone could provide data showing persuasively that you can save 10x more lives via malaria charities, that would often override the emotional appeals for many people. It's much easier to give in to your emotions, when you aren't encumbered by contradictory data.
CompelTechnic 8y ago
That is an interesting comparison. If they adopt either an Ayn Rand-style, "all altruism is selfish", or else a cynical, "altruism is just virtue signaling", then promoters of effective altruism should try to market it as sexy. They could develop marketing materials portraying effective altruists as hard-working, hard-partying, sophisticated, game-winning, lady-killing, truly conscientious but aspirational millionaires that have developed such complete mastery over their own lives that they now work toward effective as the last game worth playing. Like a mix between the hunter in "The Most Dangerous Game", Ozymandias from Watchmen, and Gandhi. Or something.

thatfrenchguy 8y ago

GiveWell’s CEO’s compensation is 200k: http://files.givewell.org/files/ClearFund/Meeting_2017_06_06/Attachment_F_Executive_Compensation_Proposal.pdf http://files.givewell.org/files/ClearFund/Meeting_2017_06_06... That, after working at a investment firm and having a BA in religion. Not sure that’s the skills and salary I would trust the use of the word « reason » and « science » with. Having a 200k salary in San Francisco definitely skews your vision of the world.

castlecrasher2 8y ago
200k in SF is...not a lot. At all.
- gowld 8y ago
  Why does the CEO of Givewell need to live in SF?
  - Viliam1234 8y ago
    This is a question that should be taken seriously. I am not sure whether they did or did not. But I can imagine there could be valid reasons. For example, living close to potential major donors could increase the chance of convincing some of them to donate. But this too is a thing that should be measured.
- mercutio2 8y ago
  I get where you’re coming from, I think, but the way you phrased this I can’t agree with. 200k in SF is vastly less than a bunch of smart techies are making. But it is far, far more than the median SF income, and it is a very livable salary in the Bay Area. We should remember that even though SF is expensive, and tech employees can make much more than 200k, that much money is, in fact, after taxes, a lot of money. Even in SF. The spirit of what you’re saying is, I think, that talented people who have demonstrated organizational/management skills could easily make twice that much. I think that’s true, and I think the $200k salary is reasonable for the role in the organization.
8y ago

monadgonad 8y ago

I think the Effective Altruism movement really belies its own values and cause with the fact that one of its own funds is for supporting: > organizations that work on improving long-term outcomes for humanity. Grants will likely go to organizations that seek to reduce global catastrophic risks, especially those relating to advanced artificial intelligence. [1] Yes, an argument can be made that it's important to fund prevention of global catastrophes, as while they're unlikely compared to the immediate threat of malaria, they'll cause much greater damage, thus increasing risk. However, to consider artificial intelligence to be a potential global catastrophe at all, let alone the single one requiring extra funding, is mostly unfounded. We currently can barely even define what the actual risk is, let alone how to mitigate it. It's one thing to walk past homeless people in my city and not give them money, because I know that money could much more easily and effectively safe a life in malaria-ridden parts of the world. I think it's absolutely morally repugnant to walk past them and not give them money, because instead you're paying people to sit around thinking about AI. [1] https://app.effectivealtruism.org/funds/far-future https://app.effectivealtruism.org/funds/far-future

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
Isn’t this just a statement that you disagree either with the relative probability of an AI-related disaster or the relative degree of harm it could cause? It seems harsh to say it’s “morally repugnant” when in the end you’re just saying the way you assign probabilities and degrees of negative outcomes would lead you to invest in a different portfolio of charities or efforts than what this other group would do. (I’m not arguing for or against the correctness of a belief that AI poses attention- and funding-worthy threats. Only that these other people motivated to allocate resources to it have studied the problem in great detail and their sincere belief after looking into it is that it is worth being part of the overall portfolio of charity investment, and this really would (in their sincere judgment) mitigate big-scale harm, no different than fundamental research into global warming or drug-resistant bacteria, regardless of whether lay people can more easily envision the types of harm from those other threats.
- monadgonad 8y ago

bjelkeman-again 8y ago

This is something close to what I work with. Ten years ago we started an organisation to help international development organisations use IT tools more effectively. In 2012 we took over the development and operation of a field data collection system from Water for People and together with them released it under an open source license. We work with 20+ governments and 200+ international NGOs in providing them with data solutions. In my opinion, using data in international development work to see what is effective and how you can improve the work, has by a surprising number of people working in the sector, not been seen as particularly important. This is changing. The awareness that more and better data, as well as the understanding how to handle the data and working on a sustainable technical infrastructure, has existed for some time in the sector, but has been slow to come to the forefront. At the end of the work with the Millennium Development Goals [1] an independent expert group was set up to give advice to the UN Secretary General [2] and to highlight this problem (Tim O’Reilly was probably the only person you would recognise that was part of the group). But to actually get the sector to change has been very slow progress. An analysis by a group of organisations have identified the underspending on data and analytics that is essentially endemic. [4] They estimate that to be able to track the indicators chosen for the Sustainable Development Goals [4] we need to spend some US$ 350-500 million/year more than we do today. (Not that all the indicators in the SDGs are that easy to measure and track. A colleague in the sector said “Of the full set of indicators (232), 88 are not backed up by available data or a suitable method to gather it, and 55 have some form of method but no data. […] Many of them are bordering on the realm of the unmeasurable”.) [5] However, there is a change coming, but I don’t think it is happening fast enough. My opinion is that we won’t be able to achieve the SDGs for 2030 without data and we are not investing enough. As part of our work we have since 2012 helped 11 governments collect data about water access and sanitation to cover about 130 million people, mainly in West and East Africa, in South East Asia and the Pacific. And we are working with organisations such as UNICEF and WHO, together with governments, to approach this in a systematic way with long term sustainability for the processes and systems that get put in place, but it is an uphill struggle. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals [2] http://www.undatarevolution.org http://www.undatarevolution.org [3] Paris21, UNICEF, World Bank, ODI, Earth Institute, Open Data Watch, Simon Fraser University, UNIDO https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=2017&menu=35 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&ty... [4] https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=2017&menu=35 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&ty... [5] http://news.trust.org/item/20180524172651-1sjk4/ http://news.trust.org/item/20180524172651-1sjk4/

dandare 8y ago

I am a bit skeptical about the "scientific rigor" part. Sure, all charities are not equal and there is a big difference between donating to musical education in the US and curing blindness in Africa. But estimating the impact usually involves a lot of guesswork and quantifying the "quality of life" factors. What is the impact of George Soros' pro-democracy foundations? What is the impact of Amnesty International? What is the impact of me supporting the education of one child in Bolivia via ActionAid?

lacker 8y ago

I think the Effective Altruism movement is great. I was wondering recently what the most effective way would be to donate money specifically to help the less fortunate within California, and unfortunately it is not clear to me how to do it. GiveWell seems to do a pretty good job evaluating charities fighting diseases in poor countries, so hopefully similar operations spring up to evaluate other types of charity as well.

rumcajz 8y ago
That's because saving a life in a poor country is cheaper that in rich country. If your goal is no maximize number of lives saved you'd naturally look at poor countries.

jrochkind1 8y ago

Not new, and not helpful in my opinion. For a bunch of reasons, including Goodhart's/Campbell's Law (look em up), and http://prospect.org/article/state-debate-lessons-right-wing-philanthropy http://prospect.org/article/state-debate-lessons-right-wing-...

rbongers 8y ago

I'm probably missing something, but I have some serious concerns about the effectiveness of this approach to charity. First of all, without some coordinated effort to spread out donations, won't some of the more effective charities still suffer? If everyone gives to the top 4 charities, for example, won't the 5th most effective one suffer? I don't believe this movement yet has the traction behind it to have this kind of negative effect, but won't it get worse as the movement grows? Second of all, who decides what is the most effective cause (or who interprets the studies that indicate which cause is most effective)? If I could spend 1 dollar and know it would save 5 lives or prevent 50 people from living with horrible mental illness, I would have trouble deciding which one to give to, even if given empirical evidence as to which is cause is the most beneficial to society. Any field dealing with this many human variables is bound to produce at least some skewed results. To me, it seems like the trolley problem with a limitless number of tracks with different situations. Third of all, some of the causes that are not effective might still benefit from some amount of involvement. The example they give - volunteering at a soup kitchen - is one such example. Say giving to the homeless is effective, but volunteering at a soup kitchen is not. Someone still needs to volunteer at the soup kitchen, even if it's not many people.

Kalium 8y ago
I can see you don't miss much. You've made some excellent points! > First of all, without some coordinated effort to spread out donations, won't some of the more effective charities still suffer? This is almost certainly true. However, it's also true that this is the case in any scenario where there are less than infinite resources. The starvation issue is very real today. With that said, I think adherents to EA hope that their movement will incentivize effectiveness in charities. Some might postulate that there are worse possible outcomes than charities competing for effectiveness. > Second of all, who decides what is the most effective cause (or who interprets the studies that indicate which cause is most effective)? If I could spend 1 dollar and know it would save 5 lives or prevent 50 people from living with horrible mental illness, I would have trouble deciding which one to give to, even if given empirical evidence as to which is cause is the most beneficial to society. This is another excellent point! How people pick causes is a real concern. It's also one people face today. I think it's largely still a matter of personal choice and priorities. The EA approach tries to put a framework in place for explicitly reasoning about what people currently tend to do implicitly. It absolutely is a trolley problem with infinite tracks and infinite victims. Yet, we already live that trolley problem. > Third of all, some of the causes that are not effective might still benefit from some amount of involvement. The example they give - volunteering at a soup kitchen - is one such example. Say giving to the homeless is effective, but volunteering at a soup kitchen is not. Someone still needs to volunteer at the soup kitchen, even if it's not many people. Not to nitpick your example, but a sufficiently well-funded soup kitchen could likely afford to hire some of the homeless to staff it. Then it could be free of the need for volunteers and lift people off of having to live on the streets! It wouldn't be many people, but it also seems like it might be preferable to staffing the kitchen entirely with unpaid volunteers. More broadly, you're once again absolutely right. This is a real and pressing concern in a scenario where Effective Altruism becomes literally the only way any person thinks about charity. However, some might postulate that we are not currently in that scenario.

abvdasker 8y ago

I first heard of this movement in the book Strangers Drowning. The book is structured as a varied series of accounts of extreme altruism along with some philosophical discussion of cultural attitudes towards it. This movement appears in one chapter about members of Giving What We Can, an organization of individuals donating at least 10% of their income to charity. The chapter follows one woman who gives away almost all of her six-figure salary every year. I'd highly recommend Strangers Drowning if this sort of thing interests you. It's a fairly short read and made me reconsider how I regard altruism by looking at the most extreme examples of this human impulse. One of the best points the book makes is the surprisingly cynical views towards altruism which prevail in the US.

ggm 8y ago
One of the best points the book makes is the surprisingly cynical views towards altruism which prevail in the US. This comment echoes something I have felt for some time. I feel that aspects of the US economic development which root in 'self reliance' have encouraged this. Ayn Randian world views?
- abvdasker 8y ago
  The book talks about Ayn Rand a bit, but spends more time discussing the damage done to altruistic ideals by Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and much of Freud's work. Freud considered altruism and philanthropy a form of masochistic pathology.
  - ggm 8y ago
    Freud/fraud

norepicycle 8y ago

An entertaining, particularly biting, and horribly shortcoming-riddled statement of the case against EA that nevertheless captures a common set of views: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_elitist_philanthropy_of_so_called_effective_altruism https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_elitist_philanthropy_of_... (This is the "defective altruism" article.) Is there a name for a set of views that are correlated with each other in prevalence, in the sense that they occur together more often than could be explained by chance alone? It's similar to the idea of a syndrome in medicine: "opinion syndrome", perhaps?

balfirevic 8y ago
Memeplex maybe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memeplex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memeplex

emodendroket 8y ago

Well, measuring overhead isn't a great way to measure efficacy (trying to game this metric often leads to behaviors that are penny-wise and pound-foolish), but I don't find utilitarianism a compelling moral philosophy and really find the idea of trying to quantify how much good a charity does kind of silly.

jopsen 8y ago
Obviously, it's impossible to capture all the variables, but in quantifying the good we do, we value all lives the same, and strive to maximize the good we do. If the EA movement forces big charities to focus a bit more on bang for buck, then that's a win. Perfect efficiency will never be possible anyways.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  I have some experience in the nonprofit sector. While you obviously don't want to see people being cavalier with donor dollars, nonprofits that are obsessed with cost cutting are more effective at scolding people for wanting a chair that isn't falling apart or making a few too many photocopies than they are at their missions.
  - jopsen 8y ago
    Looking at givewells analysis, they don't seem too focused on office supplies, but rather whether the charity did any follow-up studies, how far it scales and what it costs. But the follow-up studies seem far more important, than the per unit cost of mosquito nets.
casebash 8y ago
Even if there are things that quantitative measurement can't capture, perhaps we could at least use it to rule out donating to some charities?
- emodendroket 8y ago
  If you want to answer a question like "who distributes the most malaria nets per dollar?" then quantitative measure is very effective. I don't think that's most questions facing someone who wants to do good, though.

antpls 8y ago

Why is The Economist being upvoted that much lately? I was a subscriber and they were a pain to unsubscribe to. Articles are OK but do not contain actual information or news, imho