Difference between revisions of "Effective altruism"

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(started rant, cites to come)
 
(26 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{LessWrong}}
+
{{cquote|When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.|||[[wp:Hélder Câmara|Hélder Câmara]]}}
'''Effective altruism''' is a movement to change the world through making carefully-targeted charitable donations, and ''only'' through making carefully-targeted charitable donations. It is pushed very hard by Bay Area technolibertarians, particularly those associated with [[LessWrong]]. Philosopher [[Peter Singer]] also buys into it big time.
+
 
 +
'''Effective altruism''' is a movement to change the world through making carefully-targeted charitable donations, and ''only'' through making carefully-targeted charitable donations. Although it has a very definite point, in that some "[[charity|charities]]" spend more on the leaders than the people they are supposed to help, direct intervention will almost never solve systemic problems.  Effective Altruism is therefore pushed very hard by Bay Area [[libertarianism#"Techno-libertarians"|technolibertarians]] who think that the world is set up pretty well and don't really want to see any major social changes towards equality that would diminish their own positions. [[LessWrong]] also pushes the concept heavily, seeing itself as the obvious beneficiary.
 +
 
 +
Philosopher [[Peter Singer]] started the idea and buys into it big time.<ref>http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_singer_the_why_and_how_of_effective_altruism.html</ref> However, the Singer brochure version &mdash; a categorical imperative for pretty much ''every'' comfortable first-world citizen, with the specific aim of systemic changes &mdash; and the actual manifestation are not the same at all.
  
 
Like other movements whose names are lies the advocates tell themselves ("race realism", "traditional marriage"), EA is not quite all that. In practice, it consists of well-off libertarians congratulating each other on what wonderful human beings they are for working rapacious shitweasel jobs but choosing their charities well, but ''never in any way'' questioning the system that the problems are in the context of.
 
Like other movements whose names are lies the advocates tell themselves ("race realism", "traditional marriage"), EA is not quite all that. In practice, it consists of well-off libertarians congratulating each other on what wonderful human beings they are for working rapacious shitweasel jobs but choosing their charities well, but ''never in any way'' questioning the system that the problems are in the context of.
  
The idea of EA is that utilitarianism is true (and you can do arithmetic on it with meaningful results), that all lives (or Quality-Adjusted Life Years) are equivalent (so those poor people in Africa are equivalent to the comfortable first-world donor) and that some charities do better at this than others. Thus, it should be theoretically possible to run the numbers and see which is objectively the most effective charity per dollar donated.
+
The idea of EA is that utilitarianism is true (and you can do arithmetic on it with meaningful results), that all lives (or Quality-Adjusted Life Years) are equivalent (so those poor people in Africa are equivalent to the comfortable first-world donor) and that some charities do better at this than others. Thus, it should be theoretically possible to run the numbers and see which is objectively the most effective charity per dollar donated; and to offset the horrible things your job does to people in your own country with charitable donations to other countries. It's like buying "asshole offsets".<ref name=replaceability/>
 +
 
 +
The trouble is that EA is a mechanism to push the libertarian idea that charity is a replacement for government action or funding. Individual charity has nothing like the funding or effectiveness of concerted government action &mdash; but EA sustains the myth that individual charity is ''the most effective way to help the world''. EA proponents will frequently be seen excusing their choice to work completely fucking evil jobs because they're so charitable, and disparaging the foolish people who actually work on the ground at the charity for their ineffectiveness compared to the power of the donors.<ref name=replaceability>Todd, Benjamin. [http://www.academia.edu/1807196/Which_Ethical_Careers_Make_a_Difference_The_Replaceability_Issue_in_the_Ethics_of_Career_Choice Which ethical careers make a difference? The replaceability issue in the ethics of career choice] (Master's thesis)</ref>
  
The trouble is that EA is a mechanism to push the libertarian idea that charity is superior to government action or funding. Individual charity has nothing like the funding or effectiveness of concerted government action &mdash; but EA sustains the myth that individual charity is ''the most effective way to help the world''. EA proponents will frequently be seen excusing their choice to work completely fucking evil jobs because they're so charitable.<ref>Todd, Benjamin. [http://www.academia.edu/1807196/Which_Ethical_Careers_Make_a_Difference_The_Replaceability_Issue_in_the_Ethics_of_Career_Choice Which ethical careers make a difference? The replaceability issue in the ethics of career choice] (Master's thesis)</ref>
+
The ideas have been around a while, but the current subculture that calls itself Effective Altruism got a big push from LessWrong. Who considered themselves ''obviously'' the most effective charity in the world<ref>They claim <capture>[http://lesswrong.com/lw/6w3/the_125000_summer_singularity_challenge/4krk "8 lives saved per dollar donated".]</capture></ref> until EA charity guide GiveWell rated donations to them as actually ''worse'' for their project (the threat to humanity of Artificial Intelligence) than not donating.<ref>[http://lesswrong.com/lw/cbs/thoughts_on_the_singularity_institute_si/ Thoughts on the Singularity Institute (SI)] (Holden Karnovsky, LessWrong, 11 May 2012)</ref>
  
The ideas have been around a while, but the current subculture that calls itself Effective Altruism started on LessWrong. Who considered themselves ''obviously'' the most effective charity in the world, until EA charity guide GiveWell rated donations to them as actually ''worse'' for their project (creating a Friendly Artificial Intelligence) than not donating.<ref>[http://lesswrong.com/lw/cbs/thoughts_on_the_singularity_institute_si/ Thoughts on the Singularity Institute (SI)] (Holden Karnovsky, LessWrong, 11 May 2012)</ref>
+
They're probably making the world a better place than they would spending ''all'' their money on blow. But that doesn't mean you should take seriously their claims of virtue, and ''particularly'' not their claims of being an example to emulate.
  
 
==Footnotes==
 
==Footnotes==
 
{{reflist}}
 
{{reflist}}
 
  
 
[[Category:LessWrong]]
 
[[Category:LessWrong]]
 
[[Category:Libertarianism]]
 
[[Category:Libertarianism]]

Revision as of 10:39, 1 May 2014

When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.
Hélder Câmara

Effective altruism is a movement to change the world through making carefully-targeted charitable donations, and only through making carefully-targeted charitable donations. Although it has a very definite point, in that some "charities" spend more on the leaders than the people they are supposed to help, direct intervention will almost never solve systemic problems. Effective Altruism is therefore pushed very hard by Bay Area technolibertarians who think that the world is set up pretty well and don't really want to see any major social changes towards equality that would diminish their own positions. LessWrong also pushes the concept heavily, seeing itself as the obvious beneficiary.

Philosopher Peter Singer started the idea and buys into it big time.[1] However, the Singer brochure version — a categorical imperative for pretty much every comfortable first-world citizen, with the specific aim of systemic changes — and the actual manifestation are not the same at all.

Like other movements whose names are lies the advocates tell themselves ("race realism", "traditional marriage"), EA is not quite all that. In practice, it consists of well-off libertarians congratulating each other on what wonderful human beings they are for working rapacious shitweasel jobs but choosing their charities well, but never in any way questioning the system that the problems are in the context of.

The idea of EA is that utilitarianism is true (and you can do arithmetic on it with meaningful results), that all lives (or Quality-Adjusted Life Years) are equivalent (so those poor people in Africa are equivalent to the comfortable first-world donor) and that some charities do better at this than others. Thus, it should be theoretically possible to run the numbers and see which is objectively the most effective charity per dollar donated; and to offset the horrible things your job does to people in your own country with charitable donations to other countries. It's like buying "asshole offsets".[2]

The trouble is that EA is a mechanism to push the libertarian idea that charity is a replacement for government action or funding. Individual charity has nothing like the funding or effectiveness of concerted government action — but EA sustains the myth that individual charity is the most effective way to help the world. EA proponents will frequently be seen excusing their choice to work completely fucking evil jobs because they're so charitable, and disparaging the foolish people who actually work on the ground at the charity for their ineffectiveness compared to the power of the donors.[2]

The ideas have been around a while, but the current subculture that calls itself Effective Altruism got a big push from LessWrong. Who considered themselves obviously the most effective charity in the world[3] until EA charity guide GiveWell rated donations to them as actually worse for their project (the threat to humanity of Artificial Intelligence) than not donating.[4]

They're probably making the world a better place than they would spending all their money on blow. But that doesn't mean you should take seriously their claims of virtue, and particularly not their claims of being an example to emulate.

Footnotes