Thanks for sharing this post both :) I also think it’s an important discussion, so I’ve broken up a few points I’d like to make and hope you find useful
It’s worth contemplating the establishment of an EA Africa initiative [...] Actively seeking out and involve more community builders and contributors from diverse African backgrounds to ensure a broader range of perspectives. Explore the possibility of hosting an EAGx conference in Africa
I think all of these suggestions are great and I’d be very happy if they came about, especially if the agenda and talks/themes were chosen by African EAs and not prescribed by ‘central’ EA
EA UCT finds itself in a competitive environment where distinguishing our focus as a research- and evidence-based movement becomes an intricate endeavour. The prevailing narrative often places an emphasis on tangible, immediate impact, which has occasionally posed hurdles in conveying the nuanced nature of EA’s approach.
It’s interesting that this is the environment you find EA to be in at UCT—and I’d definitely defer to you about how EA is perceived, or what kinds of EA arguments and stories would be best received in an African context. It’s interesting because I feel a lot of EA criticism in the West is that it focuses too much on immediate impact and not the nuanced, longer-term ones (though this may have changed in recent years)
Central to our discourse is the aspiration for Africa to become self-reliant and cease dependency on external interventions.
I think many EAs would agree with this—and many of the points made here seem similar to me to those made in “Growth and the case against randomista development” and I think that argument could be strengthened when coupled with African perspectives and experiences. But also don’t think these criticisms have been ignored by GHD EA, on a recent podcast the CEO of GiveWell responded to this critique, and seems to be unconvinced at the evidence base for systemic interventions and concerned that supporting them could cause harmful backfire effects (i’d recommend listening yourself rather than just accepting my summary)
In our engagement with Effective Altruism (EA), we noted a distinct emphasis on Existential Risks, notably concerning Artificial Intelligence (AI), alongside a focus on animal welfare and veganism...It’s important to note that concentrating solely on existential risks could inadvertently diminish the urgency of current issues, such as poverty and education.
My main ‘critical’ take on this post, if there is one, is that is seems to buy into the idea that EA used to be about Global Health and is now about ‘crazy ideas’[1] like wild animal welfare or longtermism. Your experience is of course your experience and I don’t deny it. I’d be very interested to find out why your impressions does lean this way.
I also don’t think that the link makes the strongest case for longtermism being potentially harmful—the last paragraph could apply to essentially any ideology at all. And the piece Singer links to that brings up this potential harm is from Émile Torres, who I don’t think is a credible critic of EA or longtermism.[2]
Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. We greatly appreciate your input.
Your observation about the perception of EA at UCT and the emphasis on immediate impact versus long-term considerations is an intriguing one. It underscores the adaptability of EA principles to different contexts and highlights the ongoing discussions and critiques within the EA community about focus areas.
The aspiration for Africa to become self-reliant is a point of agreement that many EAs share, we appreciate your mention of this perspective, “Growth and the case against randomista development” as we hadn’t heard nor read about it until you mentioned it. We’re also grateful for the podcast suggestion and will be sure to check it out.
Your critique about the post potentially perpetuating the idea that EA is solely about existential risks or “crazy ideas” is duly noted. As you said, our experience is our experience. It’s important to emphasise that EA encompasses a broad range of cause areas, including global health and development, and it’s crucial to recognise the diversity of focus within the movement.
We appreciate your feedback on the credibility of the sources cited and acknowledge that criticisms and debates are ongoing within the EA community.
Thanks for sharing this post both :) I also think it’s an important discussion, so I’ve broken up a few points I’d like to make and hope you find useful
I think all of these suggestions are great and I’d be very happy if they came about, especially if the agenda and talks/themes were chosen by African EAs and not prescribed by ‘central’ EA
It’s interesting that this is the environment you find EA to be in at UCT—and I’d definitely defer to you about how EA is perceived, or what kinds of EA arguments and stories would be best received in an African context. It’s interesting because I feel a lot of EA criticism in the West is that it focuses too much on immediate impact and not the nuanced, longer-term ones (though this may have changed in recent years)
I think many EAs would agree with this—and many of the points made here seem similar to me to those made in “Growth and the case against randomista development” and I think that argument could be strengthened when coupled with African perspectives and experiences. But also don’t think these criticisms have been ignored by GHD EA, on a recent podcast the CEO of GiveWell responded to this critique, and seems to be unconvinced at the evidence base for systemic interventions and concerned that supporting them could cause harmful backfire effects (i’d recommend listening yourself rather than just accepting my summary)
My main ‘critical’ take on this post, if there is one, is that is seems to buy into the idea that EA used to be about Global Health and is now about ‘crazy ideas’[1] like wild animal welfare or longtermism. Your experience is of course your experience and I don’t deny it. I’d be very interested to find out why your impressions does lean this way.
I also don’t think that the link makes the strongest case for longtermism being potentially harmful—the last paragraph could apply to essentially any ideology at all. And the piece Singer links to that brings up this potential harm is from Émile Torres, who I don’t think is a credible critic of EA or longtermism.[2]
My emphasis, not yours! I’m not even saying you believe this per se, but the ideas seem in the same area
Cards on the table, I don’t think they’re credible full stop
Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. We greatly appreciate your input.
Your observation about the perception of EA at UCT and the emphasis on immediate impact versus long-term considerations is an intriguing one. It underscores the adaptability of EA principles to different contexts and highlights the ongoing discussions and critiques within the EA community about focus areas.
The aspiration for Africa to become self-reliant is a point of agreement that many EAs share, we appreciate your mention of this perspective, “Growth and the case against randomista development” as we hadn’t heard nor read about it until you mentioned it. We’re also grateful for the podcast suggestion and will be sure to check it out.
Your critique about the post potentially perpetuating the idea that EA is solely about existential risks or “crazy ideas” is duly noted. As you said, our experience is our experience. It’s important to emphasise that EA encompasses a broad range of cause areas, including global health and development, and it’s crucial to recognise the diversity of focus within the movement.
We appreciate your feedback on the credibility of the sources cited and acknowledge that criticisms and debates are ongoing within the EA community.