The way effective altruism has been criticized in the wake of SBF has been disturbing to me, because it frequently conflates: - Genuine and meaningful criticis

The way effective altruism has been criticized in the wake of SBF has been disturbing to me, because it frequently conflates: - Genuine and meaningful criticism of the latest manifestation of "ends justifies the means" thinking (and how it inevitably just becomes a rationalization for whatever you want to do) - Significant questions about whether longtermism and a focus on hypothetical future people leads to an altruistic impulse getting detached from genuinely useful action - Sneering philosophical chauvinism that acts as though the way people normally behave (caring a lot about people and things close to them and caring little or not at all about people and things that are far away) is inherently, obviously the right way to act, and anyone diverging from that should be inherently viewed with suspicion - Tall-poppy syndrome, acting as though people wanting to change the world is itself a problem, rather than flaws in their approach. There's plenty of ways to poke at the assumptions of EA-as-practiced, but it often feels like the prevailing tone is "these weirdos, why are they trying to be any different than the rest of society?" - which feels more and more like an inevitable trap for outside criticism of any subculture. (Disclosure: I give 10% of my income to the Against Malaria Foundation as a result of reading about EA ideas, so I consider myself EA-aligned. I don't do any longtermism stuff or participate in discourse beyond that.)