6 ms·

I completely disagree. The point that the article is making is that effective altruism has baked into it one very peculiar view of what effective means. Effecti

I completely disagree. The point that the article is making is that effective altruism has baked into it one very peculiar view of what effective means. Effective altruism is essentially utilitarian altruism. Don't spend £5 at your school's summer fair so they can buy a new set of books for the school library, take that money and hand it to Oxfam to provide clean water to a child in a war torn area. Sure, if you define charitable giving only in terms of one psuedo-objective globalist optimization problem, then effective altruism is the answer. But that's not what most people actually are or should be doing with their altruism. Are we seriously saying we should shut down all the foodbanks in the UK and divert the money to UN aid camps on the borders of Ukraine? Because the inevitable result of this logic is that we accept that the vast majority of things we give our money to charitably should cease, diverted to one very specific group of problems. You could envision a different view of effective altruism which poses the question as "Finding ways to make sure your altruism solves the problem you want to solve efficiently without taking a view on which problems are worth solving". Take a look at GiveWell - a famous EA organisation. The sum total of their recommendation is basically "Give money to stop African people from dying from Malaria, having vitamin deficiency, and vaccinate them"

zozbot234 4y ago
The value of "a book in the local school library" is basically as a consumption good for local students. It's something entirely different from funding socially beneficial causes even locally (such as funding scientific research) - which many EA's would support BTW. There are good arguments for both. EA accepts that there will be differences among people wrt. issues such as how much of our income should pay for broad causes, and whether we should prefer local causes even when they are somewhat less effective. They argue that the advice they can provide as to effectiveness makes a big difference regardless.
pessimizer 4y ago
This defense of the essay reads like a generalized defense of nationalism. > Because the inevitable result of this logic is that we accept that the vast majority of things we give our money to charitably should cease, diverted to one very specific group of problems. And this isn't a defense of anything. Maybe we should be doing that.
- Traster 4y ago
  I have a stronger responsibility to my friends, family and community than to people I have much weaker links to. I also have pragmatic concerns about neglecting improving conditions in first world countries in terms of long term solutions to poverty and global health. EA has one very specific literal understanding of “effective” that makes a lot of controversial assumptions that they often don’t do a great job of justifying.
  - yboris 4y ago
    Is the "controversial assumption" you are referring to that EAs tend to care about all individuals regardless of distance (in space or time) to themselves? If your "obligation" is to help those in your country before you help those in other countries, should you also then start in your state, or your city, or your block, or your house, before you turn to help others outside the narrow focus you choose? This all seems very parochial in a world that is very interconnected. Consider, should the millionaires living in a rich neighborhood support their local school first, before their philanthropic concern extends to the further-away poorer areas? The comparison EA people try to get others to focus on is that in the world of philanthropy, counterintuitively, you literally can have 1,000 times more positive impact with the same amount of money. It's like doing the same amount of good $1,000 can with just $1 donation - when given to cost-effective charities. And based on research, I hope it doesn't surprise you that, you can get these kinds of multiplier effects only when you focus on helping those that can be most-effectively helped, who predominantly are not in the US.
    - Traster 4y ago
      The controversial assumption I'm referring to is that all charitable giving prior to EA was wrong-headed and that the way in which everyone else prioritizes their giving is wrong in prioritizing by both need and connection. EA isn't just saying that you need to prioritize based on measurable outcomes, but that you should take no consideration of your own position in society when choosing to give. Don't pay back to the community that fostered your success, others are more in need. And I say this is controversial because it goes directly against almost all previous examples of altruism.
bryanlarsen 4y ago
The mission statement of GiveWell is "We search for the charities that save or improve lives the most per dollar." That's a part of effective altruism, but not anywhere close to all of it. Open Philanthropy is a better example: In 2017, they spent: $118 million (42%) on global health and development $43 million (15%) on potential risks from advanced artificial intelligence $36 million (13%) on scientific research (which cuts across other causes) $28 million (10%) on biosecurity and pandemic preparedness $27 million (10%) on farm animal welfare $10 million (4%) on criminal justice reform $9 million (3%) on other global catastrophic risks $10 million (4%) on other cause areas, including land use reform, macroeconomic policy, immigration policy, promotion of effective altruism and improving decision-making https://80000hours.org/2020/08/misconceptions-effective-altruism/ https://80000hours.org/2020/08/misconceptions-effective-altr...
- Traster 4y ago
  I think that speaks volumes - the biggest group is global health, which is basically back to the malaria topic, and ten the second is AI, as if there's solid data driven evidence of the impact of AI. It kind of lays out the absurdity of the whole thing.
  - zozbot234 4y ago
    AI ethics has become a very popular area of research as of late, and EA have been forerunners in this area. This adds to their other well-known "hits" wrt. pandemic preparedness and criminal justice reform. I wonder if animal welfare will be next.
lostmsu 4y ago
Re: food bank to UN aid camps. Just had a conversation with a nurse about healthy young people in US not willing to work and living off unemployment and food stamps simply because they can. I assure you at those UN camps there are thousands of people who do not have that attitude, and who would resume being productive members of society with a little help. So in that context my answer would be "yes", I'd rather my taxes went there.
ineptech 4y ago
This is an extremely uncharitable take. If people are starving in your hometown, donating food to them will be very effective. If they're not, donating food to some other town where people are starving will be more effective. That's not moralistic, that's just efficient. Separately, once people start thinking about effectiveness, most of them are forced to face some level of cognitive dissonance. If your beliefs say "Medicine for malaria victims in Indonesia is more important than sheltering homeless dogs and cats in Portland" but your actions say the opposite, yes, that is painful to face. But that's not EA's fault; cognitive dissonance is inherently unpleasant to examine, that's why people avoid examining it.
- Traster 4y ago
  What I'm saying is that people aren't efficient, and that's not a flaw. It's not wrong to prioritize your family, friends and community in how you want to spend your charitable giving. If you, and everyone elses, actions says "Actually we want to sort out this problem of stray dogs and cats in my community" maybe we need to examine why, rather than turning into a robot and say it's illogical.
  - sweetheart 4y ago
    I see what you’re saying, but it’s also worth pointing out how unbelievably biased and myopic human beings are. If we only ever did what felt right in the moment without trying to take a larger view of something then we’d let really foul systems endure which cause lots of problems for those that fall outside of the worldview of whoever is doing the charity. What I mean is, we are flawed, and sometime we need to account for those flaws by relying on systems we establish. Sometimes that might feel weird or wrong, but that’s probably because our gut instinct is to adhere the “flawed” parts of our reasoning (which are the same parts that lead humans to be racist, homophobic, bigoted, speciesism, etc.)
  - ineptech 4y ago
    > If you, and everyone elses, actions says "Actually we want to sort out this problem of stray dogs and cats in my community" maybe we need to examine why I think this is exactly what EA is trying to say! Think about what you want, examine it, and if you still want to donate to a pet shelter, then great, go do that. Or, if examining it makes you want to give to some other cause, do that instead. Either way, the point is to think about it, as opposed to just mindlessly giving to whatever cause has the slickest brochures or ads on TV with celebrities.

zozbot234 4y ago

The value of "a book in the local school library" is basically as a consumption good for local students. It's something entirely different from funding socially beneficial causes even locally (such as funding scientific research) - which many EA's would support BTW. There are good arguments for both. EA accepts that there will be differences among people wrt. issues such as how much of our income should pay for broad causes, and whether we should prefer local causes even when they are somewhat less effective. They argue that the advice they can provide as to effectiveness makes a big difference regardless.

pessimizer 4y ago

This defense of the essay reads like a generalized defense of nationalism. > Because the inevitable result of this logic is that we accept that the vast majority of things we give our money to charitably should cease, diverted to one very specific group of problems. And this isn't a defense of anything. Maybe we should be doing that.

Traster 4y ago
I have a stronger responsibility to my friends, family and community than to people I have much weaker links to. I also have pragmatic concerns about neglecting improving conditions in first world countries in terms of long term solutions to poverty and global health. EA has one very specific literal understanding of “effective” that makes a lot of controversial assumptions that they often don’t do a great job of justifying.
- yboris 4y ago
  Is the "controversial assumption" you are referring to that EAs tend to care about all individuals regardless of distance (in space or time) to themselves? If your "obligation" is to help those in your country before you help those in other countries, should you also then start in your state, or your city, or your block, or your house, before you turn to help others outside the narrow focus you choose? This all seems very parochial in a world that is very interconnected. Consider, should the millionaires living in a rich neighborhood support their local school first, before their philanthropic concern extends to the further-away poorer areas? The comparison EA people try to get others to focus on is that in the world of philanthropy, counterintuitively, you literally can have 1,000 times more positive impact with the same amount of money. It's like doing the same amount of good $1,000 can with just $1 donation - when given to cost-effective charities. And based on research, I hope it doesn't surprise you that, you can get these kinds of multiplier effects only when you focus on helping those that can be most-effectively helped, who predominantly are not in the US.
  - Traster 4y ago
    The controversial assumption I'm referring to is that all charitable giving prior to EA was wrong-headed and that the way in which everyone else prioritizes their giving is wrong in prioritizing by both need and connection. EA isn't just saying that you need to prioritize based on measurable outcomes, but that you should take no consideration of your own position in society when choosing to give. Don't pay back to the community that fostered your success, others are more in need. And I say this is controversial because it goes directly against almost all previous examples of altruism.

bryanlarsen 4y ago

The mission statement of GiveWell is "We search for the charities that save or improve lives the most per dollar." That's a part of effective altruism, but not anywhere close to all of it. Open Philanthropy is a better example: In 2017, they spent: $118 million (42%) on global health and development $43 million (15%) on potential risks from advanced artificial intelligence $36 million (13%) on scientific research (which cuts across other causes) $28 million (10%) on biosecurity and pandemic preparedness $27 million (10%) on farm animal welfare $10 million (4%) on criminal justice reform $9 million (3%) on other global catastrophic risks $10 million (4%) on other cause areas, including land use reform, macroeconomic policy, immigration policy, promotion of effective altruism and improving decision-making https://80000hours.org/2020/08/misconceptions-effective-altruism/ https://80000hours.org/2020/08/misconceptions-effective-altr...

Traster 4y ago
I think that speaks volumes - the biggest group is global health, which is basically back to the malaria topic, and ten the second is AI, as if there's solid data driven evidence of the impact of AI. It kind of lays out the absurdity of the whole thing.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  AI ethics has become a very popular area of research as of late, and EA have been forerunners in this area. This adds to their other well-known "hits" wrt. pandemic preparedness and criminal justice reform. I wonder if animal welfare will be next.

lostmsu 4y ago

Re: food bank to UN aid camps. Just had a conversation with a nurse about healthy young people in US not willing to work and living off unemployment and food stamps simply because they can. I assure you at those UN camps there are thousands of people who do not have that attitude, and who would resume being productive members of society with a little help. So in that context my answer would be "yes", I'd rather my taxes went there.

ineptech 4y ago

This is an extremely uncharitable take. If people are starving in your hometown, donating food to them will be very effective. If they're not, donating food to some other town where people are starving will be more effective. That's not moralistic, that's just efficient. Separately, once people start thinking about effectiveness, most of them are forced to face some level of cognitive dissonance. If your beliefs say "Medicine for malaria victims in Indonesia is more important than sheltering homeless dogs and cats in Portland" but your actions say the opposite, yes, that is painful to face. But that's not EA's fault; cognitive dissonance is inherently unpleasant to examine, that's why people avoid examining it.

Traster 4y ago
What I'm saying is that people aren't efficient, and that's not a flaw. It's not wrong to prioritize your family, friends and community in how you want to spend your charitable giving. If you, and everyone elses, actions says "Actually we want to sort out this problem of stray dogs and cats in my community" maybe we need to examine why, rather than turning into a robot and say it's illogical.
- sweetheart 4y ago
  I see what you’re saying, but it’s also worth pointing out how unbelievably biased and myopic human beings are. If we only ever did what felt right in the moment without trying to take a larger view of something then we’d let really foul systems endure which cause lots of problems for those that fall outside of the worldview of whoever is doing the charity. What I mean is, we are flawed, and sometime we need to account for those flaws by relying on systems we establish. Sometimes that might feel weird or wrong, but that’s probably because our gut instinct is to adhere the “flawed” parts of our reasoning (which are the same parts that lead humans to be racist, homophobic, bigoted, speciesism, etc.)
- ineptech 4y ago
  > If you, and everyone elses, actions says "Actually we want to sort out this problem of stray dogs and cats in my community" maybe we need to examine why I think this is exactly what EA is trying to say! Think about what you want, examine it, and if you still want to donate to a pet shelter, then great, go do that. Or, if examining it makes you want to give to some other cause, do that instead. Either way, the point is to think about it, as opposed to just mindlessly giving to whatever cause has the slickest brochures or ads on TV with celebrities.