3 ms·
Obviously we should all want our altruism to be effective. What is the other side of it? Wanting one's altruism to not really accomplish much? But with everyth
by kylecordes 3y ago
Obviously we should all want our altruism to be effective. What is the other side of it? Wanting one's altruism to not really accomplish much?
But with everything that has gone on, I cannot imagine wanting to be an Effective Altruist! The movement by that name seems to do and think some really weird stuff.
- upwardbound 3y agoThe "Think Globally, Act Locally" movement is the competing philosophy. It's deeply entrenched in our culture, and has absolutely dominated philanthropic giving for several decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_globally,_act_locally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_globally,_act_locally "Think Globally, Act Locally" leads to charities in wealthy cities getting disproportionately huge amounts of money for semi-frivolous things like symphony orchestras, while people in the global south are dying of preventable diseases.
- zztop44 3y agoIt’s obnoxious because of that exact implication, that pre-existing altruism wasn’t concerned with efficacy. And that’s just not true. There has been a community of professional practice around measuring impact and directing funds accordingly for decades. Does it always generate perfect results? No, far from it!! Is there room to improve? Absolutely, lots and lots of room! But it’s hard not to notice that the people who call themselves Effective Altruists have no better a track record (actually, I would say far worse) than the so-called bloated NGOs and international organizations when it comes to efficacy.