3 ms·

EA as a concept is great. The old saying "if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach him to fish, you feed him for life." The EA movement i

EA as a concept is great. The old saying "if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach him to fish, you feed him for life." The EA movement itself over-complicates and distorts it. I recall reading about how someone from EA mocked a social worker and claimed she was selfish for not going into business and making millions, because she could help more people donating the millions than she could doing social work. This was before FTX collapsed.

layer8 3y ago
The fallacy of the EA movement is that they persuaded themselves that it is possible to reason towards the most “effective” altruistic course action in a fully rational way. The reality is that there are serious philosophical-logical paradoxes, like the repugnant conclusion [0]. As a result, they reasoned themselves into conclusions that were most favorable to their own preferred way of life. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox
- jschveibinz 3y ago
  Interesting point. I would argue that every collective movement has philosophical-logical paradoxes. Religious organizations are some that immediately come to mind. Political action and legislation is another example. Likewise, any attempt to "social engineer" for the benefit of some will in some way result in a loss for others. I can't argue any for any law of conservation of "benefit" here. I'm just suggesting that there are always pros and cons. And thanks for the link!
jowea 3y ago
I agree the original concept is fine. I think we can mostly split criticism of the movement from criticism of the ideas. We can look at the SBF thing and this article and the links posted by GP to see a lot that has gone wrong with the movement. But then we have to split the ideas that have attached themselves to EA, because I don't think Peter Singer was talking about 10^54 simulated consciousness or whatever. So the article seems to agree with the most basic idea of EA, which I feel even the average person on the street would agree with, the "donate money with maximum effectiveness". And your example is from a group that believes in "earn to give", which is way more controversial and one of the big excuses for SBF and crew. Also, assuming a random social worker could just choose to go into business and make millions seems just incorrect.

layer8 3y ago

The fallacy of the EA movement is that they persuaded themselves that it is possible to reason towards the most “effective” altruistic course action in a fully rational way. The reality is that there are serious philosophical-logical paradoxes, like the repugnant conclusion [0]. As a result, they reasoned themselves into conclusions that were most favorable to their own preferred way of life. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox

jschveibinz 3y ago
Interesting point. I would argue that every collective movement has philosophical-logical paradoxes. Religious organizations are some that immediately come to mind. Political action and legislation is another example. Likewise, any attempt to "social engineer" for the benefit of some will in some way result in a loss for others. I can't argue any for any law of conservation of "benefit" here. I'm just suggesting that there are always pros and cons. And thanks for the link!

jowea 3y ago

I agree the original concept is fine. I think we can mostly split criticism of the movement from criticism of the ideas. We can look at the SBF thing and this article and the links posted by GP to see a lot that has gone wrong with the movement. But then we have to split the ideas that have attached themselves to EA, because I don't think Peter Singer was talking about 10^54 simulated consciousness or whatever. So the article seems to agree with the most basic idea of EA, which I feel even the average person on the street would agree with, the "donate money with maximum effectiveness". And your example is from a group that believes in "earn to give", which is way more controversial and one of the big excuses for SBF and crew. Also, assuming a random social worker could just choose to go into business and make millions seems just incorrect.