Man, thanks for writing this. Your thoughts are always so organized and easy to follow, I really appreciate it!
The only thing I really knew about EA until recently was the GiveWell angle. A lot of charities skim too much off the top, a lot of charities target feel-good causes that are over-funded leaving more urgent-yet-boring causes underfunded, give your money wisely. I grew up poor and only recently started receiving a really good salary once I began my current career, so I wanted my newfound ability to donate to charities to go as far as possible, so I would've considered myself an effective altruist until recently. I didn't realize a lot of the worse aspects of EA that you point out in this.
Do you still consider the evaluation of cost-effectiveness of charities a useful tool? Are there organizations that don't rely on RCT that someone like me could use instead? I'm currently decently politically active back home (mostly in the lgbtq+ community, though I'm really interested in getting more into prison abolition once I return stateside), and am specifically working in the field of renewable energy engineering to try to do my own little part to "make the world a better place", so I do appreciate that there are more dimensions to living a moral life than donating money and feeling smug about it. But I still want whatever money I do give to go as far as possible, and appreciate the EA ethos on that front. Or am I still missing the point?
If you think participating in US politics is the best way to do the “most that we can do for each other, together”, I have some oceanfront property in Nebraska to sell you. Of course we should vote and canvas for progressive candidates, and billionaires like SBF certainly don’t make their fortunes ethically, but to suggest that EA is somehow wrong to advocate for people to donate to effective causes is ridiculous.
Man, thanks for writing this. Your thoughts are always so organized and easy to follow, I really appreciate it!
The only thing I really knew about EA until recently was the GiveWell angle. A lot of charities skim too much off the top, a lot of charities target feel-good causes that are over-funded leaving more urgent-yet-boring causes underfunded, give your money wisely. I grew up poor and only recently started receiving a really good salary once I began my current career, so I wanted my newfound ability to donate to charities to go as far as possible, so I would've considered myself an effective altruist until recently. I didn't realize a lot of the worse aspects of EA that you point out in this.
Do you still consider the evaluation of cost-effectiveness of charities a useful tool? Are there organizations that don't rely on RCT that someone like me could use instead? I'm currently decently politically active back home (mostly in the lgbtq+ community, though I'm really interested in getting more into prison abolition once I return stateside), and am specifically working in the field of renewable energy engineering to try to do my own little part to "make the world a better place", so I do appreciate that there are more dimensions to living a moral life than donating money and feeling smug about it. But I still want whatever money I do give to go as far as possible, and appreciate the EA ethos on that front. Or am I still missing the point?
Thanks again!
If you think participating in US politics is the best way to do the “most that we can do for each other, together”, I have some oceanfront property in Nebraska to sell you. Of course we should vote and canvas for progressive candidates, and billionaires like SBF certainly don’t make their fortunes ethically, but to suggest that EA is somehow wrong to advocate for people to donate to effective causes is ridiculous.