Thanks for sharing this post both :) I also think itās an important discussion, so Iāve broken up a few points Iād like to make and hope you find useful
Itās 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 Iād be very happy if they came about, especially if the agenda and talks/āthemes were chosen by African EAs and not prescribed by ācentralā 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 EAās approach.
Itās interesting that this is the environment you find EA to be in at UCTāand Iād 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. Itās 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 thisāand many of the points made here seem similar to me to those made in āGrowth and the case against randomista developmentā and I think that argument could be strengthened when coupled with African perspectives and experiences. But also donāt 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 (iād 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...Itās important to note that concentrating solely on existential risks could inadvertently diminish the urgency of current issues, such as poverty and education.
My main ācriticalā 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 ācrazy ideasā[1] like wild animal welfare or longtermism. Your experience is of course your experience and I donāt deny it. Iād be very interested to find out why your impressions does lean this way.
I also donāt think that the link makes the strongest case for longtermism being potentially harmfulāthe last paragraph could apply to essentially any ideology at all. And the piece Singer links to that brings up this potential harm is from Ćmile Torres, who I donāt 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, āGrowth and the case against randomista developmentā as we hadnāt heard nor read about it until you mentioned it. Weāre 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 ācrazy ideasā is duly noted. As you said, our experience is our experience. Itās important to emphasise that EA encompasses a broad range of cause areas, including global health and development, and itās 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 itās an important discussion, so Iāve broken up a few points Iād like to make and hope you find useful
I think all of these suggestions are great and Iād be very happy if they came about, especially if the agenda and talks/āthemes were chosen by African EAs and not prescribed by ācentralā EA
Itās interesting that this is the environment you find EA to be in at UCTāand Iād 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. Itās 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 thisāand many of the points made here seem similar to me to those made in āGrowth and the case against randomista developmentā and I think that argument could be strengthened when coupled with African perspectives and experiences. But also donāt 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 (iād recommend listening yourself rather than just accepting my summary)
My main ācriticalā 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 ācrazy ideasā[1] like wild animal welfare or longtermism. Your experience is of course your experience and I donāt deny it. Iād be very interested to find out why your impressions does lean this way.
I also donāt think that the link makes the strongest case for longtermism being potentially harmfulāthe last paragraph could apply to essentially any ideology at all. And the piece Singer links to that brings up this potential harm is from Ćmile Torres, who I donāt think is a credible critic of EA or longtermism.[2]
My emphasis, not yours! Iām not even saying you believe this per se, but the ideas seem in the same area
Cards on the table, I donāt think theyāre 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, āGrowth and the case against randomista developmentā as we hadnāt heard nor read about it until you mentioned it. Weāre 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 ācrazy ideasā is duly noted. As you said, our experience is our experience. Itās important to emphasise that EA encompasses a broad range of cause areas, including global health and development, and itās 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.