> 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 a…
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…
Translation: "The EA folks were talking about AI ethics before it was cool."
> 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 a…
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.
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 effectiven…
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.
> 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 a…
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.
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?
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.
Do you consider yourself a contrarian?
I agree with most people about most things, just like most people. I think maybe you ask that because I'm not shy about disagreeing with people, when it happens that I do. I don't feel any internal pressure or desire to please the crowd.
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…
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.
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.
Silicon Valley was never liberal. It was always pro libertarian, wrapped in some kind of social progress branding. What changed is that the mask slipped... The same people, who preached openness and democracy, now pivot overnight to nationalism and strong state fantasies when regulation or taxes appear, like for example Marc Andreessen recent disgusting ideological flip-flops. Calling this an intelligentsia is too ki…
> The same people, who preached openness and democracy, now pivot overnight to nationalism
Nationalism isn't necessarily incompatible with open democracies. People in a democracy can vote for nationalistic policies without there being any contradiction.
I think you're massively overselling "Moldbug"'s influence. Most on the right today dismiss him for being jewish. Older right-leaning people are mostly stuck on the Facebook/Fox News reservation and don't read essays or blogs, ever, and probably aren't even literate enough to understand Yarvin let alone get talking into monarchism by him. I will grant that he has influence, but definitely not "massive". Maybe he has…
“He has no influence… except perhaps among a small group of the most ideologically extreme, politically active, industrially dominant, and financially resourced people on the planet” No one thinks Yarvin is popular. They think (know) he’s influential among the very specific small group that you disclaim any knowledge of.
I said monarchists are rare. I maintain that they are, even if rich people rank among their numbers. About the only people from whom you could expect an affinity for monarchism, in America, are rich people who consider themselves aristocrats already (who although powerful, are very few in number) and weird greasy kids in highschools.
Incidentally, I did stumble across the existence of a group of genuine monarchists in America a few years back. They're a sort of Catholic... [Association? Cult let's say] who think the French revolution is the root of all modern evil and instead all government should be subservient to the Catholic church. But their group dates back to some guy in Brazil in the 20th century. These guys are genuine though, not internet larpers or people being edgy for lulz. They're also very obscure and extremely fringe. Almost like the Catholic version of the Westboro Baptist people.
> 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 a…
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.
> 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 a…
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.