Nitpick: You say “There are altruistic activities which fall outside this grouping – for example, working to improve biodiversity for its own sake. But these don’t improve anyone’s well-being, and so fall outside the scope of effective altruism,” but I thought EA was defined more broadly than that. My understanding of EA is that if you really think that e.g. preserving biodiversity for its own sake is more worthwhile than the other causes then that’s fine, EA can help you find the most effective way to do that. I would have said that the reason why non-well-being-improving causes aren’t part of the EA Big Three is because very few people think those causes are more urgent than well-being-improving causes in the first place. Thoughts?
Learning about Wild Animal Suffering has changed my views about environmentalism, specifically about conserving natural habitats for their own sake. I still think environmentalism is important, but as a means to improving human lives by reducing pollution and improving food and water security.
There is a new facebook group to discuss Effective Environmentalism if you are interested.
It’s ambiguous whether non-welfare focussed moral pursuits (e.g. effective aesthetics) could count.
Over time the term effective altruism has come to be used to describe only welfare-focussed actions. As a result ‘biodiversity promotion for its own sake’ would fall outside common usage of the term effective altruism today, and would probably need a new term like ‘effective ecology’.
I found this very illuminating, thanks!
Nitpick: You say “There are altruistic activities which fall outside this grouping – for example, working to improve biodiversity for its own sake. But these don’t improve anyone’s well-being, and so fall outside the scope of effective altruism,” but I thought EA was defined more broadly than that. My understanding of EA is that if you really think that e.g. preserving biodiversity for its own sake is more worthwhile than the other causes then that’s fine, EA can help you find the most effective way to do that. I would have said that the reason why non-well-being-improving causes aren’t part of the EA Big Three is because very few people think those causes are more urgent than well-being-improving causes in the first place. Thoughts?
Learning about Wild Animal Suffering has changed my views about environmentalism, specifically about conserving natural habitats for their own sake. I still think environmentalism is important, but as a means to improving human lives by reducing pollution and improving food and water security.
There is a new facebook group to discuss Effective Environmentalism if you are interested.
It’s ambiguous whether non-welfare focussed moral pursuits (e.g. effective aesthetics) could count.
Over time the term effective altruism has come to be used to describe only welfare-focussed actions. As a result ‘biodiversity promotion for its own sake’ would fall outside common usage of the term effective altruism today, and would probably need a new term like ‘effective ecology’.