I don’t entirely disagree with this argument they make you quoted.
”The problem [with effective altruism] is that we’ve stretched optimization beyond its optimal limits,” and that sometimes donating to the local homeless over EA charities will better serve “the real value you hold dear [that is, helping people].”
I think sometimes helping local homeless over EA charities can be a good idea to connect us emotionally with suffering, maintain strong social cohesion and set good examples to those around us who might be interested in EA. This argument may be weak, but isn’t as terrible as you seem to make out.
Also I think when their second argument is steelmanned its not that bad either. It seems to me they are arguing that helping those directly around us can help us care more, giving us more energy capacity to do more good while we do optimise abroad. I agree with them that directly helping people that suffer can help us care enough to actually optimise with the rest of our lives (altruism begets altrusim). In that sense it can be “Apples and Oranges’ in a way”, not in that the people have different value but that the Orange is protecting the part that cares deeply, which helps us care more for the Apple—the people far away who we could optimise and help more.
I also think there’s a reasonable argument that helping those we are in proximity to at least to some extent (perhaps due to emotional bias) can show integrity to our wider goal of doing the most good. I don’t think this is necessarily “muddled thinking”
It sounds like that’s what you’re feeling when you pass a person experiencing homelessness and ignore them. Ignoring them makes you feel bad because it alienates you from the part of you that is moved by this person’s suffering — that sees the orange but is being told there are only apples. That core part of you is no less valuable than the optimizing part, which you liken to your “brain.” It’s not dumber or more irrational. It’s the part that cares deeply about helping people, and without it, the optimizing part would have nothing to optimize!
My overall point is that I think you are unreasonably harsh on some of the reasoning here, even if you disagree with it. Many articles I have read which criticise Effective Altruism are so bad I don’t take them seriously, whereas I feel like this one makes some reasonable arguments even if we might disagree with them.
I don’t entirely disagree with this argument they make you quoted.
”The problem [with effective altruism] is that we’ve stretched optimization beyond its optimal limits,” and that sometimes donating to the local homeless over EA charities will better serve “the real value you hold dear [that is, helping people].”
I think sometimes helping local homeless over EA charities can be a good idea to connect us emotionally with suffering, maintain strong social cohesion and set good examples to those around us who might be interested in EA. This argument may be weak, but isn’t as terrible as you seem to make out.
Also I think when their second argument is steelmanned its not that bad either. It seems to me they are arguing that helping those directly around us can help us care more, giving us more energy capacity to do more good while we do optimise abroad. I agree with them that directly helping people that suffer can help us care enough to actually optimise with the rest of our lives (altruism begets altrusim). In that sense it can be “Apples and Oranges’ in a way”, not in that the people have different value but that the Orange is protecting the part that cares deeply, which helps us care more for the Apple—the people far away who we could optimise and help more.
I also think there’s a reasonable argument that helping those we are in proximity to at least to some extent (perhaps due to emotional bias) can show integrity to our wider goal of doing the most good. I don’t think this is necessarily “muddled thinking”
It sounds like that’s what you’re feeling when you pass a person experiencing homelessness and ignore them. Ignoring them makes you feel bad because it alienates you from the part of you that is moved by this person’s suffering — that sees the orange but is being told there are only apples. That core part of you is no less valuable than the optimizing part, which you liken to your “brain.” It’s not dumber or more irrational. It’s the part that cares deeply about helping people, and without it, the optimizing part would have nothing to optimize!
My overall point is that I think you are unreasonably harsh on some of the reasoning here, even if you disagree with it. Many articles I have read which criticise Effective Altruism are so bad I don’t take them seriously, whereas I feel like this one makes some reasonable arguments even if we might disagree with them.