5 ms·

> For the untainted, effective altruism (EA) is a very online social movement popular in tech circles, which was originally concerned with how to get rich phila

by igor47 10mo ago

> For the untainted, effective altruism (EA) is a very online social movement popular in tech circles, which was originally concerned with how to get rich philanthropists to donate to the most “effective” charities Man this really makes me mad. Why do people love to hate on EA so much? Why is effectiveness a bad things? Is the author really advocating giving money to random charities? Or do they prefer no giving at all? Is it just that EAs make people feel guilty about their own charitable giving? Is there even a reasoned critique here, or is the author just picking up on a vibe against EA and going with it to give an air of smug knowing sophistication? A little wink and nod to the audience, who will of course have heard of EA, I mean who the hell is supposed to be reading this piece? I stopped reading there. So frustrating.

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
GuinansEyebrows 10mo ago
short answer: EA is a smokescreen for regressive tax policies and privatization that allows small groups to make large decisions that affect many people without allowing their input, involvement or consent.
- igor47 10mo ago
  I think the world would be a better place if more people donated to charities, especially effective charities. I also, separately, believe in effective government that takes care of it's people, progressive tax rates, and democracy/input. I don't think these beliefs are in conflict. Also I'm pretty sure that EA as a movement is only concerned with the former mission, and does not advocate for any of the bad policies you're worried about
  - UncleMeat 10mo ago
    The EA forums that I'm aware of have spun off towards longtermism and other bizarre reframings. GiveWell and CharityNavigator still exist. Charities like GiveDirectly still exist. But, at least where I've seen it, conversation online about these things by people who'd consider themselves part of a community has shifted.
    - zozbot234 10mo ago
      Longtermism is sexy and gets a lot of attention, but the bulk of EA donations by a huge proportion still goes to run-of-the-mill poverty relief. The most controversial EA cause that still moves significant amounts of money turns out to be animal welfare.
      - UncleMeat 10mo ago
        My question is "what is the EA movement?" If somebody gives to a charity rated highly on GiveWell but doesn't talk about it as EA, is that a part of the EA movement?
- estearum 10mo ago
  A pretty key component of a charity being effective is doing things their beneficiaries actually value.
lentil_soup 10mo ago
There's some mention as to why in the article, I don't think it's about being effective but about it becoming a tag and movement and the people associated with it "EA ... was originally concerned with how to get rich philanthropists to donate to the most “effective” charities but is now just as well known for its booster-doomerism about artificial general intelligence and for having had the convicted crypto fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried as a notorious benefactor"
- igor47 10mo ago
  It's only known for doomerism and SBF because reporters like the FA author chose to focus on this, and not on, say, the hundreds of thousands of lives saved around the world by EA donors and their recipient organizations. I gotta say, I'm also pretty annoyed at the guilt-by-association with the SBF thing. If word got out that SBF liked puppies, would his enemies forswear dogs? It seems pretty easy to disavow fraud and even crypto in general (I'm not a fan of crypto), while simultaneously embracing taking a giving pledge, figuring out metrics by which to judge philanthropies, and focusing donations on the effective orgs (by whatever metric makes sense to you). It's like our civilization has lost the ability to hold two ideas in mind at a time, or to think beyond "bad people are bad"
  - lentil_soup 10mo ago
    That's the risk of it becoming a tag and movement associated with a particular group of people. Millions of people donate to charity in different ways, effectively or not and they're not part of a movement. When it becomes uppercase Effective Altruism with very prominent yet very similar in profile advocates (tech millionaires) it becomes something different and will attract scrutiny. People can and will continue to donate their time and money regardless of this particular movement.
    - igor47 10mo ago
      Most people donate $0. Do you agree it might be good and useful to have a, ummm, let's call it a movement, to change that?
Iridescent_ 10mo ago
Who deserves to receive help (and, by contrast, who is undeserving of even basic decency) should never, ever be the decision of a few ploutocrats. The state should decide on such matters, and be the upholder of equality. Else, misery becomes a contest for who can be the most compelling, most attractive miserable to the elites.
- igor47 10mo ago
  I think the whole point of EA is to avoid the misery contest and funnel philanthropy dollars in the most effective way, though there's a lot of disagreement inside the movement on what constitutes effectiveness. On the radical statism -- I guess maybe? At least the in the US right now, we certainly don't have a government that's good at directing money to the most needy. See e.g. the while USAID fiasco. Even if we had a government willing to fund international aid, I still think there is room in the world for people donating to causes they care about. If nothing else, this is how new causes rise to prominence, to be recognized by the official channels.
- zozbot234 10mo ago
  There's no such thing as "the state" except as a societal arrangement. When you argue that "the state" should decide on who gets what, what you're really saying is that this should be the decision of a few power-crazed career bureaucrats, with no accountability whatsoever or any "skin in the game". At least the plutocrat is paying for the aid out of pocket: he will care somewhat that the money is not outright misused. Why should a random government bureaucrat be trusted to make good decisions?
  - goatlover 10mo ago
    There's no such thing as "society" except for societal arrangement. And societies of any decent size for the past several thousand years have arranged for governments who decide all sorts of things. Why would state aid be decided by a few "power-crazed" career bureaucrats in representative democracies? This sounds like a libertarian screed against the state doing anything but the minimal.
mikkupikku 10mo ago
Effectiveness is to EA what Democracy is to the DPRK. Just part of the name. Amazing how many people get bamboozled by such a simple word trick though.
- igor47 10mo ago
  If you're implying that my engagement with EA is so shallow as to stop at the name -- you're incorrect. Sorry if I'm unfairly reading this as an ad hominem, but that's how it's coming off. On the merits, I think you're also wrong. Even beyond the money channeled by the movement, I think the philosophical discourse around how best to help people, what your obligations are to other people, and how to measure effectiveness has been useful and important.
  - mikkupikku 10mo ago
    I'm not sure if you are or aren't making a clear distinction between "Effective Altruism" and the premise of trying to be effective with your altruism. Everybody who is altruistic tries or at least hopes to be effective with their altruism, and what exactly that means depends on their personal set of values and perspective. An animal lover who donates only to no-kill shelters for love of animals is trying to be effective with their altruism, according to their personal values and priorities. A member of the "Effective Altruism" community however would likely say that person is being ineffective because kill shelters are a unfortunate necessity to make the numbers on pet adoption work out, and anyway they shouldn't be donating to animal welfare in the first place because the most effective way to be altruistic is to buy mosquito nets for poor tropic countries, to maximize the global population because that increases the chance of another Albert Einstein being born who will make some new breakthrough which will doubtlessly have enormous benifit to society, so really the animal lover is being a selfish idiot. Most EA community members will jump off this train of logic at some point before getting to the end, then proceed to argue with each other about it. "Effective Altruism" isn't the mere premise of being effective with altruism, that's the propaganda implication of the name but in reality it's an ideology associated with an online community, with all sorts of baggage.
    - 10mo ago
andrewmcwatters 10mo ago
[dead]
rockooooo 10mo ago
A lot of people question the "effective" part of effective altruism, and simply saying "we support more effective giving" is not convincing, especially when the most public figurehead of the movement is/was a convicted fraudster.
ajuc 10mo ago
My main problem with EA is that it's used as a pseudo-alternative to proper public services and redistribution under the pretense that if we let rich people do what they want to - they will be "more effective" at it than the evil inefficient government. What actually happens is they cut random shit, pocket the billions they save on taxes, spend a few millions here and there to feel good about themselves, and leave the chaos for someone else to sort out. See Elon's crusade against American institutions.
- igor47 10mo ago
  I don't know of any public EAs who endorsed Elon's crusade against American institutions -- can you name some? Re: pseudo-alternative to proper public service -- 80,000 hours is product of the EA movement, which aims to steer people to be effective with their career. It was transformative for me at the right moment, and helped me choice between going deeper into FAANG vs devoting my career to causes that matter (though, checking the website now, almost 10 years later, I do wish they were less AI-risk focused). Re: redistribution -- I think this is an orthogonal concern to EA, and it's unfair to expect a movement focused on altruism and philosophy to also focus on redistribution. FWIW, I am in favor of both EA and redistribution, I don't believe there's any tension between these. I think the crux of your criticism is, "some people who are bad or whom I don't like endorse EA, or perhaps use EA to justify thair baditude". I think this is a bad argument. For every position you hold, I could find a bad person who endorses it. For instance, you seem to be in favor of redistribution. You know who else was in favor of redistribution? Stalin! And he killed millions of people. This way of thinking is good for one thing and one thing only -- shutting down thought.
insane_dreamer 10mo ago
it's because you're confusing "effective altruism" as a concept, with "effective altruism" as a movement EA today is about as "altruistic" as the CCP is "communist"

by igor47 10mo ago

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

GuinansEyebrows 10mo ago

short answer: EA is a smokescreen for regressive tax policies and privatization that allows small groups to make large decisions that affect many people without allowing their input, involvement or consent.

igor47 10mo ago
I think the world would be a better place if more people donated to charities, especially effective charities. I also, separately, believe in effective government that takes care of it's people, progressive tax rates, and democracy/input. I don't think these beliefs are in conflict. Also I'm pretty sure that EA as a movement is only concerned with the former mission, and does not advocate for any of the bad policies you're worried about
- UncleMeat 10mo ago
  The EA forums that I'm aware of have spun off towards longtermism and other bizarre reframings. GiveWell and CharityNavigator still exist. Charities like GiveDirectly still exist. But, at least where I've seen it, conversation online about these things by people who'd consider themselves part of a community has shifted.
  - zozbot234 10mo ago
    Longtermism is sexy and gets a lot of attention, but the bulk of EA donations by a huge proportion still goes to run-of-the-mill poverty relief. The most controversial EA cause that still moves significant amounts of money turns out to be animal welfare.
    - UncleMeat 10mo ago
      My question is "what is the EA movement?" If somebody gives to a charity rated highly on GiveWell but doesn't talk about it as EA, is that a part of the EA movement?
estearum 10mo ago
A pretty key component of a charity being effective is doing things their beneficiaries actually value.

lentil_soup 10mo ago

There's some mention as to why in the article, I don't think it's about being effective but about it becoming a tag and movement and the people associated with it "EA ... was originally concerned with how to get rich philanthropists to donate to the most “effective” charities but is now just as well known for its booster-doomerism about artificial general intelligence and for having had the convicted crypto fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried as a notorious benefactor"

igor47 10mo ago
It's only known for doomerism and SBF because reporters like the FA author chose to focus on this, and not on, say, the hundreds of thousands of lives saved around the world by EA donors and their recipient organizations. I gotta say, I'm also pretty annoyed at the guilt-by-association with the SBF thing. If word got out that SBF liked puppies, would his enemies forswear dogs? It seems pretty easy to disavow fraud and even crypto in general (I'm not a fan of crypto), while simultaneously embracing taking a giving pledge, figuring out metrics by which to judge philanthropies, and focusing donations on the effective orgs (by whatever metric makes sense to you). It's like our civilization has lost the ability to hold two ideas in mind at a time, or to think beyond "bad people are bad"
- lentil_soup 10mo ago
  That's the risk of it becoming a tag and movement associated with a particular group of people. Millions of people donate to charity in different ways, effectively or not and they're not part of a movement. When it becomes uppercase Effective Altruism with very prominent yet very similar in profile advocates (tech millionaires) it becomes something different and will attract scrutiny. People can and will continue to donate their time and money regardless of this particular movement.
  - igor47 10mo ago
    Most people donate $0. Do you agree it might be good and useful to have a, ummm, let's call it a movement, to change that?

Iridescent_ 10mo ago

Who deserves to receive help (and, by contrast, who is undeserving of even basic decency) should never, ever be the decision of a few ploutocrats. The state should decide on such matters, and be the upholder of equality. Else, misery becomes a contest for who can be the most compelling, most attractive miserable to the elites.

igor47 10mo ago
I think the whole point of EA is to avoid the misery contest and funnel philanthropy dollars in the most effective way, though there's a lot of disagreement inside the movement on what constitutes effectiveness. On the radical statism -- I guess maybe? At least the in the US right now, we certainly don't have a government that's good at directing money to the most needy. See e.g. the while USAID fiasco. Even if we had a government willing to fund international aid, I still think there is room in the world for people donating to causes they care about. If nothing else, this is how new causes rise to prominence, to be recognized by the official channels.
zozbot234 10mo ago
There's no such thing as "the state" except as a societal arrangement. When you argue that "the state" should decide on who gets what, what you're really saying is that this should be the decision of a few power-crazed career bureaucrats, with no accountability whatsoever or any "skin in the game". At least the plutocrat is paying for the aid out of pocket: he will care somewhat that the money is not outright misused. Why should a random government bureaucrat be trusted to make good decisions?
- goatlover 10mo ago
  There's no such thing as "society" except for societal arrangement. And societies of any decent size for the past several thousand years have arranged for governments who decide all sorts of things. Why would state aid be decided by a few "power-crazed" career bureaucrats in representative democracies? This sounds like a libertarian screed against the state doing anything but the minimal.

mikkupikku 10mo ago

Effectiveness is to EA what Democracy is to the DPRK. Just part of the name. Amazing how many people get bamboozled by such a simple word trick though.

igor47 10mo ago
If you're implying that my engagement with EA is so shallow as to stop at the name -- you're incorrect. Sorry if I'm unfairly reading this as an ad hominem, but that's how it's coming off. On the merits, I think you're also wrong. Even beyond the money channeled by the movement, I think the philosophical discourse around how best to help people, what your obligations are to other people, and how to measure effectiveness has been useful and important.
- mikkupikku 10mo ago
  I'm not sure if you are or aren't making a clear distinction between "Effective Altruism" and the premise of trying to be effective with your altruism. Everybody who is altruistic tries or at least hopes to be effective with their altruism, and what exactly that means depends on their personal set of values and perspective. An animal lover who donates only to no-kill shelters for love of animals is trying to be effective with their altruism, according to their personal values and priorities. A member of the "Effective Altruism" community however would likely say that person is being ineffective because kill shelters are a unfortunate necessity to make the numbers on pet adoption work out, and anyway they shouldn't be donating to animal welfare in the first place because the most effective way to be altruistic is to buy mosquito nets for poor tropic countries, to maximize the global population because that increases the chance of another Albert Einstein being born who will make some new breakthrough which will doubtlessly have enormous benifit to society, so really the animal lover is being a selfish idiot. Most EA community members will jump off this train of logic at some point before getting to the end, then proceed to argue with each other about it. "Effective Altruism" isn't the mere premise of being effective with altruism, that's the propaganda implication of the name but in reality it's an ideology associated with an online community, with all sorts of baggage.
  - 10mo ago

andrewmcwatters 10mo ago

[dead]

rockooooo 10mo ago

A lot of people question the "effective" part of effective altruism, and simply saying "we support more effective giving" is not convincing, especially when the most public figurehead of the movement is/was a convicted fraudster.

ajuc 10mo ago

My main problem with EA is that it's used as a pseudo-alternative to proper public services and redistribution under the pretense that if we let rich people do what they want to - they will be "more effective" at it than the evil inefficient government. What actually happens is they cut random shit, pocket the billions they save on taxes, spend a few millions here and there to feel good about themselves, and leave the chaos for someone else to sort out. See Elon's crusade against American institutions.

igor47 10mo ago
I don't know of any public EAs who endorsed Elon's crusade against American institutions -- can you name some? Re: pseudo-alternative to proper public service -- 80,000 hours is product of the EA movement, which aims to steer people to be effective with their career. It was transformative for me at the right moment, and helped me choice between going deeper into FAANG vs devoting my career to causes that matter (though, checking the website now, almost 10 years later, I do wish they were less AI-risk focused). Re: redistribution -- I think this is an orthogonal concern to EA, and it's unfair to expect a movement focused on altruism and philosophy to also focus on redistribution. FWIW, I am in favor of both EA and redistribution, I don't believe there's any tension between these. I think the crux of your criticism is, "some people who are bad or whom I don't like endorse EA, or perhaps use EA to justify thair baditude". I think this is a bad argument. For every position you hold, I could find a bad person who endorses it. For instance, you seem to be in favor of redistribution. You know who else was in favor of redistribution? Stalin! And he killed millions of people. This way of thinking is good for one thing and one thing only -- shutting down thought.

insane_dreamer 10mo ago

it's because you're confusing "effective altruism" as a concept, with "effective altruism" as a movement EA today is about as "altruistic" as the CCP is "communist"