Opposition to Effective Altruism

[The Great Zaganza]

Charity is the wrong approach to almost all problems that are not emergencies.
Remittances are re more powerful and targeted and safe from corruption.
Countries could count those as charitable donations and it would make a big difference.

 

[John Albert]

The Effective Altruist methodology is ostensibly a sober and reasonable philosophy, based on principles of empathy, impartiality, prioritization of resources, marginal thinking, open-minded truth seeking, and collaboration.

Sounds great!

But the practical upshot, from what I've seen discussed in EA threads on LessWrong, /r/EffectiveAltruism/, and other phil-bro forums where EA enthusiasists typically meet, is that Effective Altruism is based on the assumption that the world's experts are largely wrong in their assessments, so the world needs a generation of bold, audacious (and above all, extremely wealthy) Ayn Rand protagonists to step in with their billions of dollars to set things right.

It's essentially based on the "Great Man" theory, whereby the world's problems are not solved by communities of scientists and other experts who make lifelong careers out of studying those problems in great detail, including root causes, impact dynamics, and the relative economics of various solutions.

Instead, these self-identified "Effective Altruists" believe we should place the future of the world into the hands of wealthy, business-minded, self-interested dilettantes with a hero complex who take it upon themselves to decide what is best for everybody.

So in order to be part of this transformative über-class of platonic Philosopher-Kings, step one is to either have a lot of disposable income ready to go, or figure out some racket to acquire as much capital as possible in the shortest possible span of time in order to maxmize your effective potential.

To an outsider like me, it all looks a lot like a euphemistic excuse to pull out all the ethical stops in order to beg, borrow or steal as much wealth as possible as quickly as possible, on the pledge that at some arbitrary point you'll decide you have enough personal wealth to start giving back, and then switch over into "altruism" mode.

Sorry if I'm a little skeptical.
.

 

[John Albert]

if he gave away any money, he was also buying ferraris and properties in the islands

No, no, no, you're looking at it the wrong way. Geez, man don't you know anything about philsophy?

He was donating large sums of charity to the real estate agents and Ferrari dealers.

They have families to feed, too!
.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Charity is the wrong approach to almost all problems that are not emergencies.
Remittances are are more powerful and targeted and safe from corruption.
Countries could count those as charitable donations and it would make a big difference.

Actually, I'd say the right solution to anything that's not an emergency is addressing the root problem. But that's not always so easy.

 

[ahhell]

The Effective Altruist methodology is ostensibly a sober and reasonable philosophy, based on principles of empathy, impartiality, prioritization of resources, marginal thinking, open-minded truth seeking, and collaboration.

Sounds great!

But the practical upshot, from what I've seen discussed in EA threads on LessWrong, /r/EffectiveAltruism/, and other phil-bro forums where EA enthusiasists typically meet, is that Effective Altruism is based on the assumption that the world's experts are largely wrong in their assessments, so the world needs a generation of bold, audacious (and above all, extremely wealthy) Ayn Rand protagonists to step in with their billions of dollars to set things right.

It's essentially based on the "Great Man" theory, whereby the world's problems are not solved by communities of scientists and other experts who make lifelong careers out of studying those problems in great detail, including root causes, impact dynamics, and the relative economics of various solutions.

Instead, these self-identified "Effective Altruists" believe we should place the future of the world into the hands of wealthy, business-minded, self-interested dilettantes with a hero complex who take it upon themselves to decide what is best for everybody.

So in order to be part of this transformative über-class of platonic Philosopher-Kings, step one is to either have a lot of disposable income ready to go, or figure out some racket to acquire as much capital as possible in the shortest possible span of time in order to maxmize your effective potential.

To an outsider like me, it all looks a lot like a euphemistic excuse to pull out all the ethical stops in order to beg, borrow or steal as much wealth as possible as quickly as possible, on the pledge that at some arbitrary point you'll decide you have enough personal wealth to start giving back, and then switch over into "altruism" mode.

Sorry if I'm a little skeptical.
.

By which standard skepticism is just an excuse for douche bags be pedantic know it all's, atheism is just a way for dudes to poke a thumb in the eye of their religious fathers while feeling superior to religious suckers, and marxism is just an excuse for murderous psychopaths to take over governments.

Which is to say, they all can be those things but that isn't all that they are.

 

[ahhell]

Actually, I'd say the right solution to anything that's not an emergency is addressing the root problem. But that's not always so easy.

Seems to me you are a proponent of effective altruism, but you just don't want to call yourself one.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

the root problems are:
- discrepancy between free movement of money and free movement of goods, services and labor
- richer countries keeping poor countries in debt traps
- dominance of few currencies for global trade

not an exhaustive list

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

You can call it whatever you like. But the reality is that words change meaning based on how people use them. Insisting that things be called based on the meaning it had decades ago seems like a pointless exercise to me.

I mean, trivial example, in the early 20'th century "calculator" meant a person (typically a woman) doing arithmetic by hand. Whole office buildings full of such women calculated the artillery tables that won the battleship duels of WW2. But nowadays insisting that a woman is a calculator, she just doesn't doesn't want to call her that, would be a kinda silly exercise. She doesn't because the word meaning shifted in the meantime.

 

[ahhell]

You can call it whatever you like. But the reality is that words change meaning based on how people use them. Insisting that things be called based on the meaning it had decades ago seems like a pointless exercise to me.

I mean, trivial example, in the early 20'th century "calculator" meant a person (typically a woman) doing arithmetic by hand. Whole office buildings full of such women calculated the artillery tables that won the battleship duels of WW2. But nowadays insisting that a woman is a calculator, she just doesn't doesn't want to call her that, would be a kinda silly exercise. She doesn't because the word meaning shifted in the meantime.

And most of the proponents of effectively altruism mean what I've been saying, it's a few tech bros and the opposition that use the other meaning. I think it obvious why the opposition does, its a lot easier to criticize if it means, getting as rich as you can and maybe spend the money on charity in the end than it is if it means using data to spend charity dollars wisely.

Maybe it's my algorithm but when I do a search, the only definitions I get are basically using evidence and reason to decide how to spend your charity wisely.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

What I'm saying is that in the larger scheme than the guys proposing your stuff, the meaning has already been hijacked by the Ayn Rand bros and/or proponents of the fallacy I just mentioned. And there is a LOT of overlap between the two. The average person reading that term, well, you get what most of them are going to understand by that. As our esteemed colleague John Albert just illustrated. You could fight an uphill battle to take the term back, and I might even cheer for you, but I have better things to do than fight that battle myself.

And how many people pushed for that is rather irrelevant. I mean, it took just one guy to get Dracula to mean something else than "son of the dragon", which is what Vlad's original patronymic meant. (Literally, his dad was a knight of the order of the dragon.)

 

[John Albert]

The charity-based approach to major social problems is inherently problematic at its core.

 

[John Albert]

And most of the proponents of effectively altruism mean what I've been saying

Where can I find these proponents?

Everywhere I have ever seen an "Effective Altruism" community, they've fit the archetype I described in my post #22.
.

 

[ahhell]

Where can I find these proponents?

Everywhere I have ever seen an "Effective Altruism" community, they've fit the archetype I described in my post #22.
.

My primary introduction to the topic came through the podcast, the reality check. They've covered the concept on a number of episodes or givewell.

GiveWell

Real change for your dollar

www.givewell.org

 

[ahhell]

What I'm saying is that in the larger scheme than the guys proposing your stuff, the meaning has already been hijacked by the Ayn Rand bros and/or proponents of the fallacy I just mentioned. And there is a LOT of overlap between the two. The average person reading that term, well, you get what most of them are going to understand by that. As our esteemed colleague John Albert just illustrated. You could fight an uphill battle to take the term back, and I might even cheer for you, but I have better things to do than fight that battle myself.

And how many people pushed for that is rather irrelevant. I mean, it took just one guy to get Dracula to mean something else than "son of the dragon", which is what Vlad's original patronymic meant. (Literally, his dad was a knight of the order of the dragon.)

I disagree, sure, those guys may use it as cover but that's not what it means.

 

[John Albert]

By which standard skepticism is just an excuse for douche bags be pedantic know it all's

Except we both know that's an unfair characterization.

atheism is just a way for dudes to poke a thumb in the eye of their religious fathers while feeling superior to religious suckers

Atheism isn't even that much. One might more credibly argue that atheist activism amounts to that, and they'd be closer to the mark because that's the public face that many atheist activists present.

marxism is just an excuse for murderous psychopaths to take over governments.

This is a very common evaluation of Marxism from American conservative , liberal, and fascist camps. And historically, it's not even inaccurate.

Which is to say, they all can be those things but that isn't all that they are.

OK, then what exactly is Effective Altruism?

Is it a general philsophy, a sociopolitical movement, or just a set of guidelines for how to manage one's own personal charitable donations?
.

 

[ahhell]

Except we both know that's an unfair characterization.

Atheism isn't even that much. One might more credibly argue that atheist activism amounts to that, and they'd be closer to the mark because that's the public face that many atheist activists present.

This is a very common evaluation of Marxism from American conservative , liberal, and fascist camps. And historically, it's not even inaccurate.

Which is all my point. If you want to say all those things are just what the worst folks that claim to be a part of them, that is what you get.

List of marxist who could be fairly described as murderous psychopaths: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Che..... I fully admit, not all marxists but not all effective altruists are Sam Bankman Freed or some randos on a website somewhere.

OK, then what exactly is Effective Altruism?

Is it a general philsophy, a sociopolitical movement, or just a set of guidelines for how to manage one's own personal charitable donations?

All of that, if you ask most folks advocating effective altruism, its a philosophy and movement that is trying to use evidence and reason to provide the most good for the least money. That is pretty much all I find if just search "effective altruism". If I go down to the bottom of the page I'll get to SBF.

Which is hard to argue against. Most of the criticisms I've seen are folks that either think its just SBF and douchey rando tech bros on the internet or, complaints that effective altruists don't focus on the things that the critics think they should. Which in some cases is a valid concern but its hardly a valid criticism of the whole movement.

 

[John Albert]

OK, then what exactly is Effective Altruism?

Is it a general philsophy, a sociopolitical movement, or just a set of guidelines for how to manage one's own personal charitable donations?
.

All of that, if you ask most folks advocating effective altruism, its a philosophy and movement that is trying to use evidence and reason to provide the most good for the least money.

Have you asked "most folks" who advocate for Effective Altruism? Somehow I don't think you have. There are many thousands of them at least.

If it's an active movement, that means it's not limited to the ideals set down in its foundational literature. Because Effective Altruism has active members constantly discussing and contributing new ideas to the philosophy, that shows it's been evolving over time. In that case we must look beyond the basic principles laid out in the writings of Singer and MacAskill.

In order to understand what the movement is about, we must monitor what the community at large is saying, what its thought leaders are advocating, what kinds of new people may be coming in, bringing new ideas into the discourse. And if it appears that this community is folding into or being overtaken by some other, larger movement or culture, we must take that into consideration. And when we look at the largest Effective Altruist communities on the Web, we see a lot of Ayn Randian, big-L Libertarian douchebros idolizing wealthy and powerful individualists, seeking to emulate their ideals and politics.

Even more importantly, when evaluating a philosophical or socio-economic-political movement, it's an absolute necessity to look at the objective, measurable effect that they're making on the world at large. What are their members actually doing in the name of, or in furtherance of the movement?

Have any of them made great contributions to society, or caused great harm to society, as a function of their involvement in the movement?

If we really want to make an evenhanded appraisal of Effective Altruism, these are the kinds of questions we really ought to address.

That is pretty much all I find if just search "effective altruism". If I go down to the bottom of the page I'll get to SBF.

Have I mentioned SBF at all in this thread?

Most of the criticisms I've seen are folks that either think its just SBF and douchey rando tech bros on the internet or, complaints that effective altruists don't focus on the things that the critics think they should.

I don't think I've said either of those particular criticisms.

I'm just describing the kinds of values and ideals and politics that I've seen being discussed when I've visited Effective Altruist communities on the Internet.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I disagree, sure, those guys may use it as cover but that's not what it means.

Well, it's more like it doesn't actually mean anything inherently. A word that actually covers everything, actually means nothing. It's like saying that you live under a yellow sun. Unless you are from Krypton, it adds nothing to the discussion. That's WHY Ayn Rand bros and tech-bros and even scammers like SBF could so easily use it for whatever meaning they wanted. It can just as well mean giving to the best no-kill cat rescue, as it can mean saving it all for the big AI world-saving exercise... whenever that happens.

Hell, I could spin it to mean that a close friend who (true story) used to pay a single-mom ex-pornstar Czech prostitute is the most effective form of altruism. (And I don't mean posting feet pics on OF. I mean, full on extreme Legalporno stuff. I won't give any more hints about the details, because it's against the TOS.) After all, it's effectively a form of remittance, all direct and bypassing any corruption and charity overhead and all. And it IS helping poor sex workers, after all

Or his paying for "happy ending" massages while on a business trip to China. I mean, I'm sure it was the most direct and efficient way to help a skilled, hard-working Chinese or two make ends meet at the end of the month

Except most people don't hear the version where you should check on CN, that is mundane and doesn't get many posts or air time, they hear SBF saying it. Or, as John Albert said, whole thousands of threads online about how only an enlightened and filthy rich Great Man can save us all.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, I thought John Albert had me an ignore. I guess that was a lie

 

[dirtywick]

on the other hand, if you go to the wikipedia page for effective altruism, sbf is mentioned in the opening explanation in the third paragraph credited with bringing mainstream attention to the movement, alongside the bay area tech industry. most notably to me, he's the only reason i've heard of it.

that said, yeah you can't really judge the whole movement based off of that association, that's a fair statement. although i'd be cautious in ignoring how well received the philosophy is amongst the most greedy people in america and at least try to understand what it is about it that they all found so appealing. i think there's certainly some irony in a bunch of billionaires thinking they know best how best to distribute resources charitably to best improve the lives of everyone and come to the conclusion that they should keep billions of dollars for themselves. yeah, real effective altruism.