A big part of my getting into EA was this debate between Oxford lefties and the baby 80k staff. The socialist/deontological case was weaker. But the points that Mills makes about systemic change and the streetlight fallacy describe the two biggest ways EA practice has changed in the last decade. We moved in his direction, despite him.
I feel that external criticism of EA was generally stronger back then. Perhaps this is just a reflection of broader recent cultural trends, which have degraded the quality of public discourse.
Here is a useful steelman of Mills’ critique, courtesy of ‘pragmatist’ (note that “earning to give” used to be known as “professional philanthropy”):
I’m not endorsing this argument (although there are parts of it with which I sympathize), but I think it is a lot better than the case for Mills as you present it in your post:
If a friend asked me whether she should vote in the upcoming Presidential election, I would advise her not to. It would be an inconvenience, and the chance of her vote making a difference to the outcome in my state is minuscule. From a consequentialist point of view, there is a good argument that it would be (mildly) unethical for her to vote, given the non-negligible cost and the negligible benefit. So if I were her personal ethical adviser, I would advise her not to vote. This analysis applies not just to my friend, but to most people in my state. So I might conclude that I would encourage significant good if I launched a large-scale state-wide media blitz discouraging voter turn-out. But this would be a bad idea! What is sound ethical advice directed at an individual is irresponsible when directed at the aggregate.
80k strongly encourages professional philanthropism over political activism, based on an individualist analysis. Any individual’s chance of making a difference as an activist is small, much smaller than his chance of making a difference as a professional philanthropist. Directed at individuals, this might be sound ethical advice. But the message has pernicious consequences when directed at the aggregate, as 80k intends.
It is possible for political activism to move society towards a fundamental systemic change that would massively reduce global injustice and suffering. However, this requires a cadre of dedicated activists. Replaceability does not hold of political activism; if one morally serious and engaged activist is lured away from activism, it depletes the cadre. Now any single activist leaving (or not joining) the cadre will not significantly affect the chances of revolution succeeding. But if there is a message in the zeitgeist that discourages political participation, instead encouraging potential revolutionaries to participate in the capitalist system, this can significantly impact the chance of revolutionary success. So 80k’s message is dangerous If enough motivated and passionate young people are convinced by their argument.
It’s sort of like an n-person prisoner’s dilemma, where each individual’s (ethically) dominant strategy is to defect (conform with the capitalist system and be a philanthropist), but the Nash equilibrium is not the Pareto optimum. This kind of analysis is not uncommon in the Marxist literature. Analytic Marxists (like Jon Elster) interpret class consciousness as a stage of development at which individuals regard their strategy in a game as representative of the strategy of everyone in their socio-economic class. This changes the game so that certain strategies which would otherwise be individually attractive but which lead to unfortunate consequences if adopted in the aggregate are rendered individually unattractive. [It’s been a while since I’ve read this stuff, so I may be misremembering, but this is what I recall.]
At the same time, if the shift in EA practice as claimed by you is indeed real (which I think it is), then it would also seem that EA has failed to do adequate mistake acknowledgement with respect to past critiques. This might hold some insights as to why certain forms of criticisms are by-default disincentivized.
(I do hope that this contest will make a genuine attempt to correct that disincentive landscape.)
The problem is, we’re not an agent and so no one makes The decision to shift and so no one is noticeably responsible for acknowledging credit and blame. But it’s still fair to want it.
A big part of my getting into EA was this debate between Oxford lefties and the baby 80k staff. The socialist/deontological case was weaker. But the points that Mills makes about systemic change and the streetlight fallacy describe the two biggest ways EA practice has changed in the last decade. We moved in his direction, despite him.
Maybe the lesson is: “even if you don’t win, you might shape the movement”
I feel that external criticism of EA was generally stronger back then. Perhaps this is just a reflection of broader recent cultural trends, which have degraded the quality of public discourse.
Here is a useful steelman of Mills’ critique, courtesy of ‘pragmatist’ (note that “earning to give” used to be known as “professional philanthropy”):
Maybe because EA was tiny and elite then, so only a true intellectual would bother to criticise.
Back in my day my enemies did instrumental harm like a rational person.
At the same time, if the shift in EA practice as claimed by you is indeed real (which I think it is), then it would also seem that EA has failed to do adequate mistake acknowledgement with respect to past critiques. This might hold some insights as to why certain forms of criticisms are by-default disincentivized.
(I do hope that this contest will make a genuine attempt to correct that disincentive landscape.)
Sounds right
The problem is, we’re not an agent and so no one makes The decision to shift and so no one is noticeably responsible for acknowledging credit and blame. But it’s still fair to want it.
One traditional solution