6 ms·

I keep seeing takes like this, but the effect EA has had on my life so far is that it gave me motivation and an easy framework to donate thousands of dollars a

I keep seeing takes like this, but the effect EA has had on my life so far is that it gave me motivation and an easy framework to donate thousands of dollars a year to fund deworming, vaccination, and other direct relief in underdeveloped countries, for two years in a row. I honestly had no idea who SBF was until FTX melted down. I saw zero connection between EA and Musk, Trump, etc. Was I duped? I don't think so. SBF's downfall has definitely shaken my confidence in EA as a trustworthy institution, but I still generally feel great about those donations and will likely repeat them again next year (albeit with a closer look at exactly how the funds are distributed). As with many things, it easier and more fun to disparage movements than it is to get involved and make positive change. This article is a good example of that.

lispisok 3y ago
Speaking as somebody who isnt into EA, I assure you most of the people criticizing EA havent donated a dime or spent a single minute volunteering. Everybody talks the talk about how to charity but nobody walks the walk
- operatingthetan 3y ago
  If I want to criticize a cult do I need to join it or try on their beliefs first? Seems like no to me? It feels like you are trying to point out a hypocrisy that isn't there, the authors weren't correcting the movement on 'how to charity,' but rather problematic behaviors encoded into the group's mode of operation.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    If I want to criticize a cult do I need to join it or try on their beliefs first no, but you should investigate the claims and verify that the criticism is fair.
  - kdmccormick 3y ago
    GP is not saying you have to join EA to criticize it. They are saying that you should probably try volunteering or giving a signiciant fraction of your excess income to charity before criticizing. It's not "joining the cult", unless you consider altruism as a whole to be the cult.
- late2part 3y ago
  Correct. And there's a sickness in our society, that a person/movement/concept is judged by those associated with it, instead of on its own.
  - operatingthetan 3y ago
    >that a person/movement/concept is judged by those associated with it, instead of on its own. This seems a bit odd... the issues happened within the context of the group's activities and the problems were shielded by EA. This is like suggesting the Catholic Church had nothing to do with child abuse and we should only blame the priests.
    - hollerith 3y ago
      There is no HR department or board of quality assurance for effective altruism: it's like Spiderman fandom: the only qualification for becoming a fan of Spiderman is saying that you are a fan of Spiderman. The other Spiderman fans have no way to kick you out of the fandom. EA is more like Spiderman fandom than it is like priesthood in the Catholic Church. At least in the Bay Area, I heard that the people who regularly organize in-person events will refuse entry to certain men who have a history of preying on women, but really there is no way to prevent those men or anyone else from persisting in publicly proclaiming that they are effective altruists.
      - operatingthetan 3y ago
        I mean they purchased a building for their HQ and had group meetups and stuff. It's a bit less nebulous than your spiderman fans example. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33903850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33903850
        hollerith 3y ago
        If a web site owner misbehaves, no one concludes that the misbehavior reflects poorly on all the other web site owners because everyone understands that there is no way for the other web site owners to eject the misbehaving owner from their ranks. The fact that some of these web site owners are in fact very wealthy and own buildings is not relevant. Similarly, effectivealtruism.org is just one non-profit in an ecosystem of dozens and does not own the trademark "effective altruism" or "effective altruist" (which might give it some ability to control how the trademark is used or by whom it is used).
- lazyasciiart 3y ago
  And how do you know that?
- brnaftr361 3y ago
  As someone who doesn't have the resources: of course I don't. But I also don't want the markets dictated by the whims of some dissociated jackoff arrogantly and ineffectively disbursing obscene amounts of money, and certainly not with the momentum of some centralized institution. I need cheaper food and cheaper rent and cheaper utilities prices to be able to effectively act as an altruist - you have to take care of yourself before you can take care of others - and when all of the resources are being siphoned off and distributed to the top, myself and millions of others simply lack the capacity. And if many hands makes for little work, doesn't that give way to a more effective framework than a handful of people controlling affecting altruism? I reckon so. Not to mention the whole free market thesis being wholly disrupted by the shrinkage of the middle class in developed nations, leaving the have-nots subordinated to the haves and ever more preoccupied with just getting by.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - kdmccormick 3y ago
    The working classes of developed nations need systematic help. Unequivocally. Poor people in underdeveloped nations also need help. EA targets the latter need, but that does not invalidate the former need. Unfortunately, people like SBF, who it'd be fair to consider enemies of the working class, associated themselves with EA and have tarnished the brand.
- taberiand 3y ago
  Well maybe I'm in the minority then, but I donate monthly to a number of charities and causes and I think Effective Altruism is obvious bunk created by grifters. I also think I should be taxed more and more taxes should be used for social programs and welfare, I'm certainly not best positioned to decide the most effective use of my money.
  - TheCleric 3y ago
    I echo this 100%.
mtsr 3y ago
You do you, and please don’t take this as a complaint about altruism per se. But making one feel good is often considered the most important (and most effective) part of effective altruism.
- Tyr42 3y ago
  https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/mBTvWNj9EXxyMM9TS/eas-should-donate-2-to-warm-fuzzy-causes-and-8-to-ea-causes https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/mBTvWNj9EXxyMM9TS/... The stated goals put it (warm fuzzies donation) at less important than being effective (but still required so you don't burn out). So to the first order, your comment is incorrect. However, perhaps you meant something more like "Ea trains you to be happy with making donations which which are more 'effective'", which would be true. And maybe a touch of pride/smugness for having figured it out.
devindotcom 3y ago
Glad it's worked out for you. But if you had been inspired to take charitable action by, say, being born again in evangelical christianity, should people abstain from pointing out the problems with that institution? And does every article critical of such an institution need to be tempered with praise to satisfy those who have not experienced its dark side or who disagree with the premise?
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  But is EA an institution? It seems to me like a big-tent philosophy; anybody (honest or dishonest) can declare themselves an adherent, and while there are several organizations that have set themselves up within the umbrella, there's nobody conferring official titles.
- SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
  I can't speak for the original commenter, but I would definitely have similar concerns about an article called "Evangelical Christianity Is A Welter of Lies, Hypocrisy, and Eugenic Fantasies". If you're trying to impartially inform people about what's going on in a particular movement, or argumentatively convince people sympathetic to the movement that they're wrong about it, it doesn't seem like a helpful framing. (It is, of course, a great framing if your goal is to dunk on people your readers don't like.)
  - kdmccormick 3y ago
    Yup, exactly. If the organization is truly bad, then facts will speak for themselves. IMO heavy editorialization is a sign of a weak argument.
actionfromafar 3y ago
What happens in the EA is pretty much exactly a mirror of what happens in churches. The good and the bad. I hope it will serve to illustrate how we all are human and will react similarly in similar environments.
- operatingthetan 3y ago
  Both function as a 'we are the good people' mask for bad behaviors. I don't think it's necessarily human to join and protect groups that function as whitewashing.
mentalpiracy 3y ago
lowercase effective altruism is fine and good. Effective Altruists hijacked their original, not-terrible idea into a cult.
- operatingthetan 3y ago
  I may be missing sarcasm here, but isn't the lower case version just altruism? The kind where you just do good stuff for people and don't brand it or advertise it?
  - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
    Altruism is just any kind of selfless helping of others. The "effective" part means thinking about how to do more good with limited resources; ie does a marginal dollar spent on cancer research do as much good as a dollar spent on malaria control. Not everyone wants to do the math themselves so there's some communication involved in sharing that research. And as with any cause, outreach can be very productive as well. Unless you're so wealthy that you think you can solve the world's problems all by yourself, you might find it worthwhile to spend some time on advocacy.
    - operatingthetan 3y ago
      >Altruism is just any kind of selfless helping of others. The "effective" part means thinking about how to do more good with limited resources; ie does a marginal dollar spent on cancer research do as much good as a dollar spent on malaria control. It seems like an unnecessary qualifier. E.g. I could make up 'effective frugality' but the efficiency factor of frugality is already implied. Nobody out there is pushing 'ineffective altruism' either. The effective branding seems like it is simply putting on a layer of ideology and/or branding over the existing term in order to sell it.
      - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
        I've never before encountered a literature that explicitly prioritized careful analysis of one's charitable giving, centered around a universal metric like EA has. A lot of charity centers around other things, like making an impact on one's local community, or donating to the memory of a loved one who suffered from heart disease, or something like that. Those are all good in their own way, but EA is very much a branch in its own direction away from that, and I think it's worth having some kind of qualifier to specify in what way EA is philosophically different.
TacticalCoder 3y ago
> ... but the effect EA has had on my life so far is that it gave me motivation and an easy framework to donate thousands of dollars a year to fund deworming, vaccination, and other direct relief in underdeveloped countries TFA literally explains how a $18m donation with stolen money was used by the EA movement to buy a lavish mansion. TFA also explains of the EA movement was lauding SBF for driving in a beaten up Toyota Corolla even though they fully knew he was living in a $40m luxury mansion in the Bahamas while flying private. What makes you think most of the money you donate to such gurus actually end up to charitable causes ? If you want to donate, donate directly to charitable causes instead of donating to obvious charlatans. The EA movement tarnished its reputation by being accomplice in defrauding people's money in the FTX scam. They played the "SBF is an altruistic genius driving a Toyota Corolla" card while they knew it wasn't true and people fell for it. Turns out: there was no altruistic genius. And that's a decision of justice: guilty on seven criminal counts. Maybe "EA" should be renamed "EC": "Effective Criminals"?
- fourmajor 3y ago
  I didn't see any reference in the parent comment about donating to EA the institution or "gurus" rather than directly to charitable causes.
  - TacticalCoder 3y ago
    GP was defending EA even though TFA clearly explains how stolen money by SBF was used to buy a $16 mansion in the UK by the EA movement, all the while knowing SBF was living a lavish lifestyle but presenting him as an altruistic genius. In other words: GP's comment defends EA without taking into account the facts shown in TFA.
    - kdmccormick 3y ago
      GP here. Article is BS, that money wasn't stolen. The decision making behind the purchase was transparant. Furthering the cause of EA itself was a goal of the specific fund from which they drew that money [1]. It gives them a place to have big nice conferences, which drives donations which will well exceed $16M. Anyway, I didn't donate to that fund. I donated to the Global Dev fund [2]. If you donated to fund [1], then you knew your money would be spent on stuff like conferences. [1] https://funds.effectivealtruism.org/funds/ea-community https://funds.effectivealtruism.org/funds/ea-community [2] https://funds.effectivealtruism.org/funds/global-development https://funds.effectivealtruism.org/funds/global-development
johnfernow 3y ago
Prior to ~2021 or so, I felt that many if not most in the EA community not only wanted to donate their money in the manner that most effectively saved lives, but also donate as much of their money as they could while still avoiding relative poverty. So many were extremely frugal, living in small homes or apartments, donating as much money as they could afford to purchase mosquito nets, vaccines, and deworming medication for others, as well as many donating one of their kidneys to strangers, all things I think most would find commendable. Billionaires who live luxurious lifestyles and donate to prevent AI catastrophes was not something I was aware of at all prior to ~2021. I'm not sure how that ever became part of the movement. In fact, longtermism in general wasn't something I was aware of until sometime around then. Purchasing mosquito nets, vaccines, and deworming medication has a demonstrable impact for saving lives and objectively reduces human suffering. In contrast, while AI, nuclear warfare, etc. can indeed kill billions, donating to those charities has absolutely no demonstrable impact. It's possible it has an impact, but it is near impossible to prove. GiveWell states the following: > GiveWell evaluates potential top charities along four main criteria: (1) Effectiveness, as supported by evidence the program the charity is implementing saves or improves lives; (2) cost-effectiveness, or how much ‘bang for the buck’ the charity offers in terms of lives saved or improved per donation; (3) room for more funding, or the charity’s ability to put additional donations to use; and (4) transparency. So certain charities likely do save lives, but would never be recommended by GiveWell because they aren't transparent enough to verify that. There has to be concrete proof in order to get a recommendation, which is a perfectly reasonable decision on their part, and something I thought was the felt among all in the EA community until I heard some advocating for charities to reduce the chances of AI catastrophes and nuclear warfare, but those people always felt like a fringe part of the community until they started getting more news coverage. I'm not condemning longtermism outright, I think those who with the appropriate skills should work towards reducing the likelihood of nuclear warfare and AI induced disasters, but I don't see how it could possibly be considered "effective" altruism to donate money to charities tackling those issues considering we have not the slightest clue as to whether it's effective. In a world where people die of preventable and curable diseases because governments choose not to spend more (or more effectively) on foreign aid, I absolutely believe it is critical that people take responsibility for saving those that they can. If I see someone drowning at the beach, I'm not going to say "Well I'm not going to save them because the government didn't pay for lifeguards." Sure, they probably should have, but at the end of the day someone is living or dying based on my decision: I'm going to try to save them. The same is true for those dying of malaria, neglected tropical diseases and malnutrition: yes, I believe governments should take responsibility for those issues, but they haven't, and if I don't donate what I can, more people will die. Hundreds of thousands die each year from malaria and NTDs and millions from malnutrition. While I'm not remotely capable of solving those issues, I absolutely am capable of saving some of those people, which certainly has an enormous impact on those I can save (also, while hundreds of thousands die from malaria each year, millions suffer from it but survive, so not only can reduce death but also pain.) I think trying to get more people to donate to charities that are demonstrably effective at saving lives is extremely important. With the "Effective Altruism" movement now including stuff like longtermism, as well as having its reputation ruined, I'm not sure how advocacy should move forward. On one hand, I don't think it'd ever be good for it to be an ideology: one should evaluate individual concepts by themselves, not tie them into some larger ideology and then decide based on one's personal feelings towards that ideology whether to support it. Still, it's helpful to have terms to describe concepts in fewer words, as well as have tangible goals for advocacy, as the more people that donate to charities that effectively save lives, the more lives that are saved overall.
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]

lispisok 3y ago

Speaking as somebody who isnt into EA, I assure you most of the people criticizing EA havent donated a dime or spent a single minute volunteering. Everybody talks the talk about how to charity but nobody walks the walk

operatingthetan 3y ago
If I want to criticize a cult do I need to join it or try on their beliefs first? Seems like no to me? It feels like you are trying to point out a hypocrisy that isn't there, the authors weren't correcting the movement on 'how to charity,' but rather problematic behaviors encoded into the group's mode of operation.
- em-bee 3y ago
  If I want to criticize a cult do I need to join it or try on their beliefs first no, but you should investigate the claims and verify that the criticism is fair.
- kdmccormick 3y ago
  GP is not saying you have to join EA to criticize it. They are saying that you should probably try volunteering or giving a signiciant fraction of your excess income to charity before criticizing. It's not "joining the cult", unless you consider altruism as a whole to be the cult.
late2part 3y ago
Correct. And there's a sickness in our society, that a person/movement/concept is judged by those associated with it, instead of on its own.
- operatingthetan 3y ago
  >that a person/movement/concept is judged by those associated with it, instead of on its own. This seems a bit odd... the issues happened within the context of the group's activities and the problems were shielded by EA. This is like suggesting the Catholic Church had nothing to do with child abuse and we should only blame the priests.
  - hollerith 3y ago
    There is no HR department or board of quality assurance for effective altruism: it's like Spiderman fandom: the only qualification for becoming a fan of Spiderman is saying that you are a fan of Spiderman. The other Spiderman fans have no way to kick you out of the fandom. EA is more like Spiderman fandom than it is like priesthood in the Catholic Church. At least in the Bay Area, I heard that the people who regularly organize in-person events will refuse entry to certain men who have a history of preying on women, but really there is no way to prevent those men or anyone else from persisting in publicly proclaiming that they are effective altruists.
    - operatingthetan 3y ago
      I mean they purchased a building for their HQ and had group meetups and stuff. It's a bit less nebulous than your spiderman fans example. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33903850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33903850
      - hollerith 3y ago
        If a web site owner misbehaves, no one concludes that the misbehavior reflects poorly on all the other web site owners because everyone understands that there is no way for the other web site owners to eject the misbehaving owner from their ranks. The fact that some of these web site owners are in fact very wealthy and own buildings is not relevant. Similarly, effectivealtruism.org is just one non-profit in an ecosystem of dozens and does not own the trademark "effective altruism" or "effective altruist" (which might give it some ability to control how the trademark is used or by whom it is used).
lazyasciiart 3y ago
And how do you know that?
brnaftr361 3y ago
As someone who doesn't have the resources: of course I don't. But I also don't want the markets dictated by the whims of some dissociated jackoff arrogantly and ineffectively disbursing obscene amounts of money, and certainly not with the momentum of some centralized institution. I need cheaper food and cheaper rent and cheaper utilities prices to be able to effectively act as an altruist - you have to take care of yourself before you can take care of others - and when all of the resources are being siphoned off and distributed to the top, myself and millions of others simply lack the capacity. And if many hands makes for little work, doesn't that give way to a more effective framework than a handful of people controlling affecting altruism? I reckon so. Not to mention the whole free market thesis being wholly disrupted by the shrinkage of the middle class in developed nations, leaving the have-nots subordinated to the haves and ever more preoccupied with just getting by.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kdmccormick 3y ago
  The working classes of developed nations need systematic help. Unequivocally. Poor people in underdeveloped nations also need help. EA targets the latter need, but that does not invalidate the former need. Unfortunately, people like SBF, who it'd be fair to consider enemies of the working class, associated themselves with EA and have tarnished the brand.
taberiand 3y ago
Well maybe I'm in the minority then, but I donate monthly to a number of charities and causes and I think Effective Altruism is obvious bunk created by grifters. I also think I should be taxed more and more taxes should be used for social programs and welfare, I'm certainly not best positioned to decide the most effective use of my money.
- TheCleric 3y ago
  I echo this 100%.

mtsr 3y ago

You do you, and please don’t take this as a complaint about altruism per se. But making one feel good is often considered the most important (and most effective) part of effective altruism.

Tyr42 3y ago
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/mBTvWNj9EXxyMM9TS/eas-should-donate-2-to-warm-fuzzy-causes-and-8-to-ea-causes https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/mBTvWNj9EXxyMM9TS/... The stated goals put it (warm fuzzies donation) at less important than being effective (but still required so you don't burn out). So to the first order, your comment is incorrect. However, perhaps you meant something more like "Ea trains you to be happy with making donations which which are more 'effective'", which would be true. And maybe a touch of pride/smugness for having figured it out.

devindotcom 3y ago

Glad it's worked out for you. But if you had been inspired to take charitable action by, say, being born again in evangelical christianity, should people abstain from pointing out the problems with that institution? And does every article critical of such an institution need to be tempered with praise to satisfy those who have not experienced its dark side or who disagree with the premise?

mitthrowaway2 3y ago
But is EA an institution? It seems to me like a big-tent philosophy; anybody (honest or dishonest) can declare themselves an adherent, and while there are several organizations that have set themselves up within the umbrella, there's nobody conferring official titles.
SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
I can't speak for the original commenter, but I would definitely have similar concerns about an article called "Evangelical Christianity Is A Welter of Lies, Hypocrisy, and Eugenic Fantasies". If you're trying to impartially inform people about what's going on in a particular movement, or argumentatively convince people sympathetic to the movement that they're wrong about it, it doesn't seem like a helpful framing. (It is, of course, a great framing if your goal is to dunk on people your readers don't like.)
- kdmccormick 3y ago
  Yup, exactly. If the organization is truly bad, then facts will speak for themselves. IMO heavy editorialization is a sign of a weak argument.

actionfromafar 3y ago

What happens in the EA is pretty much exactly a mirror of what happens in churches. The good and the bad. I hope it will serve to illustrate how we all are human and will react similarly in similar environments.

operatingthetan 3y ago
Both function as a 'we are the good people' mask for bad behaviors. I don't think it's necessarily human to join and protect groups that function as whitewashing.

mentalpiracy 3y ago

lowercase effective altruism is fine and good. Effective Altruists hijacked their original, not-terrible idea into a cult.

operatingthetan 3y ago
I may be missing sarcasm here, but isn't the lower case version just altruism? The kind where you just do good stuff for people and don't brand it or advertise it?
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  Altruism is just any kind of selfless helping of others. The "effective" part means thinking about how to do more good with limited resources; ie does a marginal dollar spent on cancer research do as much good as a dollar spent on malaria control. Not everyone wants to do the math themselves so there's some communication involved in sharing that research. And as with any cause, outreach can be very productive as well. Unless you're so wealthy that you think you can solve the world's problems all by yourself, you might find it worthwhile to spend some time on advocacy.
  - operatingthetan 3y ago
    >Altruism is just any kind of selfless helping of others. The "effective" part means thinking about how to do more good with limited resources; ie does a marginal dollar spent on cancer research do as much good as a dollar spent on malaria control. It seems like an unnecessary qualifier. E.g. I could make up 'effective frugality' but the efficiency factor of frugality is already implied. Nobody out there is pushing 'ineffective altruism' either. The effective branding seems like it is simply putting on a layer of ideology and/or branding over the existing term in order to sell it.
    - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
      I've never before encountered a literature that explicitly prioritized careful analysis of one's charitable giving, centered around a universal metric like EA has. A lot of charity centers around other things, like making an impact on one's local community, or donating to the memory of a loved one who suffered from heart disease, or something like that. Those are all good in their own way, but EA is very much a branch in its own direction away from that, and I think it's worth having some kind of qualifier to specify in what way EA is philosophically different.

TacticalCoder 3y ago

> ... but the effect EA has had on my life so far is that it gave me motivation and an easy framework to donate thousands of dollars a year to fund deworming, vaccination, and other direct relief in underdeveloped countries TFA literally explains how a $18m donation with stolen money was used by the EA movement to buy a lavish mansion. TFA also explains of the EA movement was lauding SBF for driving in a beaten up Toyota Corolla even though they fully knew he was living in a $40m luxury mansion in the Bahamas while flying private. What makes you think most of the money you donate to such gurus actually end up to charitable causes ? If you want to donate, donate directly to charitable causes instead of donating to obvious charlatans. The EA movement tarnished its reputation by being accomplice in defrauding people's money in the FTX scam. They played the "SBF is an altruistic genius driving a Toyota Corolla" card while they knew it wasn't true and people fell for it. Turns out: there was no altruistic genius. And that's a decision of justice: guilty on seven criminal counts. Maybe "EA" should be renamed "EC": "Effective Criminals"?

fourmajor 3y ago
I didn't see any reference in the parent comment about donating to EA the institution or "gurus" rather than directly to charitable causes.
- TacticalCoder 3y ago
  GP was defending EA even though TFA clearly explains how stolen money by SBF was used to buy a $16 mansion in the UK by the EA movement, all the while knowing SBF was living a lavish lifestyle but presenting him as an altruistic genius. In other words: GP's comment defends EA without taking into account the facts shown in TFA.
  - kdmccormick 3y ago
    GP here. Article is BS, that money wasn't stolen. The decision making behind the purchase was transparant. Furthering the cause of EA itself was a goal of the specific fund from which they drew that money [1]. It gives them a place to have big nice conferences, which drives donations which will well exceed $16M. Anyway, I didn't donate to that fund. I donated to the Global Dev fund [2]. If you donated to fund [1], then you knew your money would be spent on stuff like conferences. [1] https://funds.effectivealtruism.org/funds/ea-community https://funds.effectivealtruism.org/funds/ea-community [2] https://funds.effectivealtruism.org/funds/global-development https://funds.effectivealtruism.org/funds/global-development

johnfernow 3y ago

Prior to ~2021 or so, I felt that many if not most in the EA community not only wanted to donate their money in the manner that most effectively saved lives, but also donate as much of their money as they could while still avoiding relative poverty. So many were extremely frugal, living in small homes or apartments, donating as much money as they could afford to purchase mosquito nets, vaccines, and deworming medication for others, as well as many donating one of their kidneys to strangers, all things I think most would find commendable. Billionaires who live luxurious lifestyles and donate to prevent AI catastrophes was not something I was aware of at all prior to ~2021. I'm not sure how that ever became part of the movement. In fact, longtermism in general wasn't something I was aware of until sometime around then. Purchasing mosquito nets, vaccines, and deworming medication has a demonstrable impact for saving lives and objectively reduces human suffering. In contrast, while AI, nuclear warfare, etc. can indeed kill billions, donating to those charities has absolutely no demonstrable impact. It's possible it has an impact, but it is near impossible to prove. GiveWell states the following: > GiveWell evaluates potential top charities along four main criteria: (1) Effectiveness, as supported by evidence the program the charity is implementing saves or improves lives; (2) cost-effectiveness, or how much ‘bang for the buck’ the charity offers in terms of lives saved or improved per donation; (3) room for more funding, or the charity’s ability to put additional donations to use; and (4) transparency. So certain charities likely do save lives, but would never be recommended by GiveWell because they aren't transparent enough to verify that. There has to be concrete proof in order to get a recommendation, which is a perfectly reasonable decision on their part, and something I thought was the felt among all in the EA community until I heard some advocating for charities to reduce the chances of AI catastrophes and nuclear warfare, but those people always felt like a fringe part of the community until they started getting more news coverage. I'm not condemning longtermism outright, I think those who with the appropriate skills should work towards reducing the likelihood of nuclear warfare and AI induced disasters, but I don't see how it could possibly be considered "effective" altruism to donate money to charities tackling those issues considering we have not the slightest clue as to whether it's effective. In a world where people die of preventable and curable diseases because governments choose not to spend more (or more effectively) on foreign aid, I absolutely believe it is critical that people take responsibility for saving those that they can. If I see someone drowning at the beach, I'm not going to say "Well I'm not going to save them because the government didn't pay for lifeguards." Sure, they probably should have, but at the end of the day someone is living or dying based on my decision: I'm going to try to save them. The same is true for those dying of malaria, neglected tropical diseases and malnutrition: yes, I believe governments should take responsibility for those issues, but they haven't, and if I don't donate what I can, more people will die. Hundreds of thousands die each year from malaria and NTDs and millions from malnutrition. While I'm not remotely capable of solving those issues, I absolutely am capable of saving some of those people, which certainly has an enormous impact on those I can save (also, while hundreds of thousands die from malaria each year, millions suffer from it but survive, so not only can reduce death but also pain.) I think trying to get more people to donate to charities that are demonstrably effective at saving lives is extremely important. With the "Effective Altruism" movement now including stuff like longtermism, as well as having its reputation ruined, I'm not sure how advocacy should move forward. On one hand, I don't think it'd ever be good for it to be an ideology: one should evaluate individual concepts by themselves, not tie them into some larger ideology and then decide based on one's personal feelings towards that ideology whether to support it. Still, it's helpful to have terms to describe concepts in fewer words, as well as have tangible goals for advocacy, as the more people that donate to charities that effectively save lives, the more lives that are saved overall.

aaron695 3y ago

[dead]