3 ms·

I think this is more about the longtermism branch of EA in particular. There are many EAs who are still focused on solving more concrete problems (like malaria,

I think this is more about the longtermism branch of EA in particular. There are many EAs who are still focused on solving more concrete problems (like malaria, extreme poverty) and directing millions of dollars in charity to Against Malaria, Give Directly, lobbying for stricter lead regulations, etc.

AlexandrB 3y ago
That's fair. Most of what I know of EA is the stuff that makes the "news" here on HN, which is generally not flattering.
stillwithit 3y ago
EA/longtermerism smell a lot like “intelligent design”; yet another attempt at belief in divine mandates for man. Like the PR teams got together and intentionally conjured semantics that tickle the same biological responses seen in religious true believers. Consider “religion” as a biological state, not an abstract philosophical framework. Behavioral economics has been leveraged to embed the hallucination that is American Civic Life similarly to embedding religious mind viruses. Given what we know now in neuroscience, how we brainwave sync with rooms of people just by being there, the leadership class reinforces among themselves hallucinations of their right to reach into all of our lives and claim them for themselves, just like the church.
- Jeff_Brown 3y ago
  For EA to tickle the same nerve that religion does seems like a feature, not a bug. Channel that urge into doing something meaningful, important and bigger than oneself.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
kdmccormick 3y ago
Yup. I give to the extreme poverty and animal welfare funds, because they seem like a great way to give to well-vetted high-impact charities. The longtermism stuff has always struck me oddly alongside those other obviously-beneficial causes. It's a bummer that's all some people think of when they hear EA.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Maybe because if all you want to do is to support things like that, there is no need for something like the EA movement in the first place?
  - kdmccormick 3y ago
    I still find valuable the idea of evaluating charities based on their effectiveness, but I guess you could rely on charity evaluators for that without taking on the entire conceptual burden of EA.
  - kiba 3y ago
    Donating to causes that resonates with you isn't the same thing as donating to causes that work on the most necessary and urgent problem of humanity.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      It is if what resonates with you is whatever you consider "the most necessary and urgent problem of humanity."
      - kiba 3y ago
        That's why there's a whole movement of people dedicated to convincing people to donate to the most necessary and urgent problem of humanity and trying to decide what exactly is that. What we chose to donate to are organizations like churches, museum, theaters, makerspaces, and the like. They enrich our lives in the neighborhoods we live in, but they're not exactly urgent as someone on the other side of the world dying to something perfectly preventable like cholera.

AlexandrB 3y ago

That's fair. Most of what I know of EA is the stuff that makes the "news" here on HN, which is generally not flattering.

stillwithit 3y ago

EA/longtermerism smell a lot like “intelligent design”; yet another attempt at belief in divine mandates for man. Like the PR teams got together and intentionally conjured semantics that tickle the same biological responses seen in religious true believers. Consider “religion” as a biological state, not an abstract philosophical framework. Behavioral economics has been leveraged to embed the hallucination that is American Civic Life similarly to embedding religious mind viruses. Given what we know now in neuroscience, how we brainwave sync with rooms of people just by being there, the leadership class reinforces among themselves hallucinations of their right to reach into all of our lives and claim them for themselves, just like the church.

Jeff_Brown 3y ago
For EA to tickle the same nerve that religion does seems like a feature, not a bug. Channel that urge into doing something meaningful, important and bigger than oneself.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

kdmccormick 3y ago

Yup. I give to the extreme poverty and animal welfare funds, because they seem like a great way to give to well-vetted high-impact charities. The longtermism stuff has always struck me oddly alongside those other obviously-beneficial causes. It's a bummer that's all some people think of when they hear EA.

JohnFen 3y ago
Maybe because if all you want to do is to support things like that, there is no need for something like the EA movement in the first place?
- kdmccormick 3y ago
  I still find valuable the idea of evaluating charities based on their effectiveness, but I guess you could rely on charity evaluators for that without taking on the entire conceptual burden of EA.
- kiba 3y ago
  Donating to causes that resonates with you isn't the same thing as donating to causes that work on the most necessary and urgent problem of humanity.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    It is if what resonates with you is whatever you consider "the most necessary and urgent problem of humanity."
    - kiba 3y ago
      That's why there's a whole movement of people dedicated to convincing people to donate to the most necessary and urgent problem of humanity and trying to decide what exactly is that. What we chose to donate to are organizations like churches, museum, theaters, makerspaces, and the like. They enrich our lives in the neighborhoods we live in, but they're not exactly urgent as someone on the other side of the world dying to something perfectly preventable like cholera.