Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NdGaM t1_itqi6yk wrote

Reply to comment by icarusrising9 in Peter Singer Is the Philosopher of the Status Quo by TuvixWasMurderedR1P

I tend to agree that the article is a clown-fiesta past the introduction, but I think it sets the stage for more reasonable criticisms. Questions like:

  1. Is effective altruism too quick to rush to the immediate aid of people? That is to say, by chasing success in short-term numbers is it missing opportunities for greater long-term improvement of the human condition, which would fall in-line with its own foundational objective?
  2. Is Singer’s viewpoint too inclined towards resignation? How do you set valid and sustainable boundaries between pipe dream objectives and meeting people’s immediate needs?

There’s more to be said, but TL;DR I think there are valid criticisms nested inside this biased and off-the-rails article.

10

colinmhayes2 t1_itsb66z wrote

X-risk analysis and prevention is the biggest cause area in effective altruism other than global health. How anyone could claim that ea is too quick to rush to the immediate aid of people is beyond me when they’re actually far too quick to rush to the aid of people who do not yet exist.

5

NdGaM t1_iu0ore0 wrote

I’m not sure I understand your post. Could you clarify a few questions for me?

  1. Are you making a case for or against EA?
  2. Is there information I’m missing that shows EA supporting a population that doesn’t exist? As an American that phrasing immediately makes me think about abortion but I suspect you might mean something else that I’m misinterpreting.
  3. I don’t understand what you mean by x-risk analysis in this context, particularly because I’m not sure if “biggest cause area” is a typo or not. I apologize if that was rude but it would help me if you offered an example of how risk analysis ties in, per your understanding. In my mind the equation is set up one way, but I am uncertain whether or not your understanding conflicts with mine.
1

colinmhayes2 t1_iu0p1mv wrote

  1. I’m not really making a case for or against ea, just saying that you seem to misunderstand their cause prioritization.

  2. Some effective altruists are very concerned for the potentially trillions of people who will exist in the future. You see this in their extensive work on nuclear non proliferation, ai safety, biohazard safety, climate change, and more in the long term as well as political action in the medium term. X risk stands for existential risk, people who care about x risk work to ensure the survival of humanity over the next thousand plus years.

Givewell tends to focus on short term welfare because it’s easier to convince people to donate to lower risk causes, but the community spends a huge amount of time working to ensure future welfare too.

1

icarusrising9 t1_itqtu2a wrote

Sure! I think another criticism that's really good emerges when one looks at how corrupt lots of poverty-stricken countries are; how much money donated is actually being pocketed by dictators and bureaucrats? And one could argue that even the money that reaches it's goal just enables the corrupt machine to keep chugging on...

But ya like you said, it's unfortunate the article went way too far and ended up being a parody of much better criticisms.

3

NobleOceanAlleyCat t1_itr7a29 wrote

That’s why Singer stresses the importance of donating to particular organizations, like GiveWell.org, which measures the effectiveness of various charities and ranks them according to their impact. He has never advocated just giving to any old charity.

7

icarusrising9 t1_itsdcic wrote

The calculus GiveWell uses is necessarily focused on short-term tangible benefits. For example, there's no way their method could or would result in donating to an organization or political movement trying to bring about large-scale systemic change.

This isn't a full-throated attack on effective altruism, I actually think Singer and GiveWell are brilliant, but it definitely is something to keep in mind.

5

NdGaM t1_iu0nuab wrote

Icarus said it well, but I just wanted to clarify that I think GiveWell is quite responsible in acting in line with its mission. It just isn’t designed to invoke systematic change from the top-down, which I would say is a valid criticism even when accounting for all the unsettled debate on whether top-down or bottom-up efforts are more practical, expedient, effective, etc.

2