Don't be too dismissive of giving to local recreational sports. Giving sports vouchers to children who are at risk or who have already been involved in a correctional system reduces the likelihood of becoming involved in crime and reduces recidivism. Sports, or pretty much anything that keeps kids busy doing something constructive after school, reduces the pool of future criminals, makes for a safer community, reduces the future demand for prisons, and engenders socially and economically valuable adults. Pretty good returns for low investment.
I hesitate to raise this in part because it is a really vague question-- and perhaps one better suited to hearing your thoughts on in a more nuanced, and therefore inevitably off-line environment. But my concern with EA, insofar as it exists, has never been with the underlying argument per se or even (many of) the more popularly advocated conclusions defended by advocates of the view, all of which strike me as generally plausible. Instead, my worry is more about the culture surrounding EA which has always struck me (as an admitted outsider) as having shared resonances with certain versions of tech-bro-ism and more toxic variants of libertarianism in ways that I find troubling (slightly misogynistic, possibly slightly deaf to certain risks or lived experiences). (Again, my exposure is slightly orthogonal and limited, so I can be talked out of this empirical claim.) Again, as I said, there isn't anything about the ACTUAL EA values or arguments that per se justifies or explains this (the same can be said of tech culture and libertarianism.) Yet it has made me wonder sometimes if there wasn't something in the way of thinking or approaching valuing that supported or at least lent itself to that, given peoples' psychologies. (Like I said, this is an almost unhelpfully vague can't quite put my finger on it kind of worry). And that has made me somewhat hesitant about its role in public discourse EVEN IF its actual value structure is correct. I'm not quite sure if this is a real question, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on it (if you have any) even if it just to tell me that my vague sense is bunk.
Not sure; I don't think I'm well placed to judge the culture (I've never been to any "EA meetups", EA Global conferences, or the like), except to report that I haven't noticed anything egregious first-hand. I have read some EA forum posts raising concerns about misogyny in specific subcommunities (around the Bay area, I think, which is maybe more dominated by the "rationalist" community), and replies from other women in EA who've had better experiences, or at least regard the baseline for society at large as worse than in specifically EA spaces (though that's admittedly faint praise).
> "Yet it has made me wonder sometimes if there wasn't something in the way of thinking or approaching valuing that supported or at least lent itself to that, given peoples' psychologies."
I'd be curious to hear more about why that might be. I would've guessed that it's more just a matter of demographics, with heavily male-skewed spaces and communities ending up a bit tone-deaf (and sometimes worse) in certain respects.
I've been involved in EA for about 7 years, and have gone to about 8 EA conferences over that time, most of them in the past year.
I don't think "toxic variants of libertarianism" are over-represented in EA. As a (mostly) libertarian myself I feel fairly isolated politically in EA spaces. EAs tend to be moderate democrat types (as in the US political party). Someone like Matt Yglesias would be very representative of the typical EA, politically.
EA's aren't that 'woke' on average, but there is a subset of them who are (maybe 5%?), so the language of "lived experiences" won't resonate that much with most EAs.
I also don't think they're very tech-bro-like, aside from mostly coming from privileged backgrounds and putting a lot of weight on intelligence.
Yes, I think it's trivially true that a good person will (i) want to help others, and (ii) prefer to do so more effectively. So a good person will be drawn to effective altruism.
A bad actor who wants "moral cover" would do better to support popular causes like children's hospitals or puppies.
But I also doubt that bad people need "moral cover". (Just look at Trump.) There's very little correlation between popularity and doing good. (It would be an outright *liability* for a politician to be publicly vegan.)
Finally, individual donations don't "create a platform", so even if you think the existence of the EA community is a bad thing, it doesn't change the fact that one should (perhaps quietly) donate to effective charities as an individual.
Don't be too dismissive of giving to local recreational sports. Giving sports vouchers to children who are at risk or who have already been involved in a correctional system reduces the likelihood of becoming involved in crime and reduces recidivism. Sports, or pretty much anything that keeps kids busy doing something constructive after school, reduces the pool of future criminals, makes for a safer community, reduces the future demand for prisons, and engenders socially and economically valuable adults. Pretty good returns for low investment.
I hesitate to raise this in part because it is a really vague question-- and perhaps one better suited to hearing your thoughts on in a more nuanced, and therefore inevitably off-line environment. But my concern with EA, insofar as it exists, has never been with the underlying argument per se or even (many of) the more popularly advocated conclusions defended by advocates of the view, all of which strike me as generally plausible. Instead, my worry is more about the culture surrounding EA which has always struck me (as an admitted outsider) as having shared resonances with certain versions of tech-bro-ism and more toxic variants of libertarianism in ways that I find troubling (slightly misogynistic, possibly slightly deaf to certain risks or lived experiences). (Again, my exposure is slightly orthogonal and limited, so I can be talked out of this empirical claim.) Again, as I said, there isn't anything about the ACTUAL EA values or arguments that per se justifies or explains this (the same can be said of tech culture and libertarianism.) Yet it has made me wonder sometimes if there wasn't something in the way of thinking or approaching valuing that supported or at least lent itself to that, given peoples' psychologies. (Like I said, this is an almost unhelpfully vague can't quite put my finger on it kind of worry). And that has made me somewhat hesitant about its role in public discourse EVEN IF its actual value structure is correct. I'm not quite sure if this is a real question, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on it (if you have any) even if it just to tell me that my vague sense is bunk.
Not sure; I don't think I'm well placed to judge the culture (I've never been to any "EA meetups", EA Global conferences, or the like), except to report that I haven't noticed anything egregious first-hand. I have read some EA forum posts raising concerns about misogyny in specific subcommunities (around the Bay area, I think, which is maybe more dominated by the "rationalist" community), and replies from other women in EA who've had better experiences, or at least regard the baseline for society at large as worse than in specifically EA spaces (though that's admittedly faint praise).
> "Yet it has made me wonder sometimes if there wasn't something in the way of thinking or approaching valuing that supported or at least lent itself to that, given peoples' psychologies."
I'd be curious to hear more about why that might be. I would've guessed that it's more just a matter of demographics, with heavily male-skewed spaces and communities ending up a bit tone-deaf (and sometimes worse) in certain respects.
I've been involved in EA for about 7 years, and have gone to about 8 EA conferences over that time, most of them in the past year.
I don't think "toxic variants of libertarianism" are over-represented in EA. As a (mostly) libertarian myself I feel fairly isolated politically in EA spaces. EAs tend to be moderate democrat types (as in the US political party). Someone like Matt Yglesias would be very representative of the typical EA, politically.
EA's aren't that 'woke' on average, but there is a subset of them who are (maybe 5%?), so the language of "lived experiences" won't resonate that much with most EAs.
I also don't think they're very tech-bro-like, aside from mostly coming from privileged backgrounds and putting a lot of weight on intelligence.
Nice summary
I applaud your article and appreciate your describing an "effective" process on
deciding what qualifies for "altruism." It is not giving money and resources to
causes one enjoys supporting, but to causes that improve, support and enhance
the "human condition, that is another's standard/quality of life. Basic needs that go unmet
deprive human beings of dignity, hope and the opportunity to develop their God given gifts and talents.
Yes, I think it's trivially true that a good person will (i) want to help others, and (ii) prefer to do so more effectively. So a good person will be drawn to effective altruism.
A bad actor who wants "moral cover" would do better to support popular causes like children's hospitals or puppies.
But I also doubt that bad people need "moral cover". (Just look at Trump.) There's very little correlation between popularity and doing good. (It would be an outright *liability* for a politician to be publicly vegan.)
Finally, individual donations don't "create a platform", so even if you think the existence of the EA community is a bad thing, it doesn't change the fact that one should (perhaps quietly) donate to effective charities as an individual.
Shouldn't a good person want a bad person to do more good rather than less?