> If you define EA as "figuring out how to deploy a given set of resources so as to do the most good," your conclusions are going to depend on your value system

> If you define EA as "figuring out how to deploy a given set of resources so as to do the most good," your conclusions are going to depend on your value system: how do you define and measure good? This is exactly it. Because "good" is subjective to the individual, EA without some kind of consensus building reduces to "maximize your agency as an individual in the world, and do what you think is good," which gets uncomfortably close to Ayn Rand territory for me. That's not just speculative either - if you read some of Caroline Ellison (Ex-CEO of Alameda Capital and an EA disciple) purported tumblr posts, it paints an image of someone who's passionate about ranking the world's issues in descending order of priority, investigating genetic differences between humans from different ethnic backgrounds, and "optimizing the world." We're not there yet, but it's also not a stretch to see EA turn into eugenics for someone with these interests and values.