Effective Altruism As A Tower Of Assumptions
I have an essay that my friends won’t let me post because it’s too spicy. It would be called something like How To Respond To Common Criticisms Of Effective Altruism (In Your Head Only, Definitely Never Do This In Real Life), and it starts:
Many people will answer yes to all of these! In which case, fine! But…well, suppose you’re a Christian. An atheist comes up to you and says “Christianity is stupid, because the New International Version of the Bible has serious translation errors”. You might immediately have questions like “Couldn’t you just use a different Bible version?” or “Couldn’t you just worship Jesus and love your fellow man while accepting you might be misunderstanding parts of the Bible?” But beyond that, you might wonder why the atheist didn’t think of these things. Are the translation errors his real objection to Christianity, or is he just seizing on them as an excuse? And if he’s just seizing on them as an excuse, what’s his real objection? And why isn’t he trying to convince you of that? This is also how I feel about these kinds of critiques of effective altruism. To me, the core of effective altruism is the Drowning Child scenario. The world is full of death and suffering. Your money (or time, or whatever resource you prefer to spend) could fix more of it than you think - one controversial analysis estimates $5,000 to save a life. You would go crazy if you tried to devote 100% of your time and money to helping others. But if you decide to just help when you feel like it or a situation comes up, you’ll probably forget. Is there some more systematic way to commit yourself to some amount between 0% and 100% of your effort (traditionally 10%)? And once you’ve done that, how do you make those resources go as far as possible? This is effective altruism, the rest is just commentary. There’s a lot of commentary. Effective altruism is now a semi-organized movement, with leaders like Will MacAskill and Toby Ord and institutions like the Open Philanthropy Project. It’s produced a vast literature on effective charities, ranging from how to best prevent malaria to how to promote animal welfare to speculative scenarios about AI apocalypse. These aren’t above criticism, and lots of people have criticized them. But if you criticize them successfully, and feel like they’re discredited, then you’re back at the basic tenets of the movement again. Think of it as a tower of assumptions. If you destroy the foundation, the whole tower falls. But if you destroy the top floor, all the other floors are still standing: When people say things like “I think AI risk is stupid, so I’m against effective altruism”, the two halves of that sentence might both be true, but the “so” joining them isn’t. Freddie deBoer writes that:
I don’t think “kill predatory animals” is an especially common EA belief, but if it were, fine, retreat back to the next-lowest level of the tower! Spend 10% of your income on normal animal welfare causes like ending factory farming. Think that animal welfare is also wacky? Then donate 10% of your income to helping poor people in developing countries. Are those kinds of things “so obvious that [they] shouldn’t be ascribed to the movement at all”? Then how come so few other people do them? Think that 10% is the wrong number, and you should be helping people closer to home? Fine, then go even lower on the tower, and donate . . . some amount of your time, money, something, to poor people in your home country. If you’re not doing this, your beef with effective altruism isn’t “the culture around Open Philanthropy Foundation devalues such and such a form of change”, your beef is whatever’s preventing you from doing that. You may additionally have an interesting intellectual point about the culture around Open Phil, much as you have an interesting intellectual point about which Bible translations you might prefer if you were a Christian, but don’t mistake it for a real crux. Near the end of my too-spicy-to-publish essay:
For me, basically every other question around effective altruism is less interesting than this basic one of moral obligation. It’s fun to debate whether some people/institutions should gain or lose status, and I participate in those debates myself, but they seem less important than these basic questions of how we should live and what our ethics should be.
You’re a free subscriber to Astral Codex Ten. For the full experience, become a paid subscriber.
|
Key phrases
Older messages
Book Review: What We Owe The Future
Tuesday, August 23, 2022
...
Sign in to Astral Codex Ten
Tuesday, August 23, 2022
. Here's a link to sign in to Astral Codex Ten. This link can only be used once and expires after 24 hours. If expired, please try logging in again here Sign in now © 2022 Scott Alexander 548
Sign in to Astral Codex Ten
Tuesday, August 23, 2022
. Here's a link to sign in to Astral Codex Ten. This link can only be used once and expires after 24 hours. If expired, please try logging in again here Sign in now © 2022 Scott Alexander 548
Your Book Review: 1587, A Year Of No Significance
Monday, August 22, 2022
Finalist #15 in the Book Review Contest
Open Thread 238
Monday, August 22, 2022
...
You Might Also Like
‘The Everything War’: Inside Amazon with author and WSJ reporter Dana Mattioli
Saturday, April 27, 2024
High school students lead AI edtech startup | New climate-focused fund raises $5M ADVERTISEMENT GeekWire SPONSOR MESSAGE: Science Firsthand: Learn how Bristol Myers Squibb unlocked the potential of CAR
SEC Sued To Define Ether | Samouri Wallet Shut Down On Money Laundering Charges
Saturday, April 27, 2024
The asset manager's new short-term credit fund is hosted on the Ethereum blockchain. ADVERTISEMENT Forbes START INVESTING • Newsletters • MyForbes Mitchell Martin Senior Editor, Forbes Money &
“Is the media prepared for an extinction-level event?”
Saturday, April 27, 2024
The Intercept is determined to avoid the fate of outlets like Gawker, Vice News, and BuzzFeed News, all of which have closed down entirely. Earlier this year, the New Yorker described the 2681 layoffs
University presidents backed into a corner
Saturday, April 27, 2024
+ what banning TikTok won't do
YOU LOVE TO SEE IT: Flying The Fairer Skies
Saturday, April 27, 2024
Plus, employers can no longer stop employees from working for their rivals, and Big Oil loses some of its dominance over public lands nationwide. YOU LOVE TO SEE IT: Flying The Fairer Skies By
Trials and Tribulations
Saturday, April 27, 2024
Columns and commentary on news, politics, business, and technology from the Intelligencer team. Intelligencer Weekend Reader Required Reading for Political Compulsives 1. Inside Todd Blanche's Plan
30 great Mother’s Day gifts
Saturday, April 27, 2024
All under $50 ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
Weekend Briefing No. 533
Saturday, April 27, 2024
CRISPR Breakthrough -- AI-Enabled Services -- Apocalyptic Optimism ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
Your new crossword for Saturday Apr 27 ✏️
Saturday, April 27, 2024
Happy Saturday, crossword fans! We have six new puzzles teed up for you this week. Play the latest Vox crossword right here, and find all of our new crosswords from the previous week in one place.
One More Chance To Save Before Midnight
Saturday, April 27, 2024
This advisory has returned a massive 838% since inception compared to the 273% return from the S&P 500 This Ends At Midnight Fellow Investor, Tonight marks the end of an exceptional opportunity: