I loved this bit: “comfortable modernity is consistent with levels of altruistic impact and moral seriousness that we might normally associate with moral heroism”
I think this maybe has the neoliberal flavor that Srinivasan objected to, but on my better days, it just seems good—better for those people who can wholeheartedly say “I can carry this load” to do so, and to be able help others materially.
I find this tweet interesting—because rather than being neoliberal, the second half exemplifies the Marxist idea of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
I do think EA is too neoliberal, but IMO this isn’t it :)
I think part of what you’re saying is that EA has innovated in bringing philanthropy down to a much ‘lower’ level. It’s not just billionaires that can do it. If we look across at other societies with less developed economies, there are plenty of people with worse problems than our own. Even as a middle-class professional in the US, there is plenty of good you can do with a little bit of giving.
Maybe part of the innovation is bringing this to a (largely, I assume) secular community and taking an international perspective? I think of church communities and mutual aid organizations as having done this for many years on highly localized and personalized scales.
Also, re this: “yes, this set of self-proclaimed altruists isn’t having as much fun as they could be or other people are, that’s correct, and an intentional tradeoff they’re making in pursuit of their moral goals.”
Are we just talking about the survivors’ guilt of being born in an advanced capitalist society, benefitting from hundreds of years of imperialist exploitation of other parts of the world?
I wrote a long twitter thread with some replies here FWIW: https://twitter.com/albrgr/status/1532726108130377729
I loved this bit: “comfortable modernity is consistent with levels of altruistic impact and moral seriousness that we might normally associate with moral heroism”
It’s a good thread, and worth a look!
I find this tweet interesting—because rather than being neoliberal, the second half exemplifies the Marxist idea of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
I do think EA is too neoliberal, but IMO this isn’t it :)
Correct me if I’m wrong--
I think part of what you’re saying is that EA has innovated in bringing philanthropy down to a much ‘lower’ level. It’s not just billionaires that can do it. If we look across at other societies with less developed economies, there are plenty of people with worse problems than our own. Even as a middle-class professional in the US, there is plenty of good you can do with a little bit of giving.
Maybe part of the innovation is bringing this to a (largely, I assume) secular community and taking an international perspective? I think of church communities and mutual aid organizations as having done this for many years on highly localized and personalized scales.
Also, re this: “yes, this set of self-proclaimed altruists isn’t having as much fun as they could be or other people are, that’s correct, and an intentional tradeoff they’re making in pursuit of their moral goals.”
Are we just talking about the survivors’ guilt of being born in an advanced capitalist society, benefitting from hundreds of years of imperialist exploitation of other parts of the world?