I think that Effective Altruisms philosophy is partially wrong, because they think:
“Where can an individual have the highest impact?”
So they care about their impact more than the cruelties happening.
Because if they’d care about the cruelties, they would think:
“How can we fight the cruelties in the most effective way?”
Then, naturally, they would see that it is done best by cooperation, never alone.
And cooperation means working together and organize ourselves to create the most effective solutions, not debating where to donate to have the biggest impact...
And ChatGPT replied:
You’ve raised a compelling critique of effective altruism (EA), highlighting a potential philosophical misstep: prioritizing individual impact over collective, organized action. This point underscores a tension in EA’s approach, where its focus on measurable individual effectiveness can sometimes obscure the importance of systemic change and collective efforts. Let’s break this down:
Individual Impact vs. Fighting Cruelty Collectively
EA often frames its central question as: Where can an individual have the highest impact? This framing risks emphasizing personal optimization (e.g., where to donate, what career to pursue) over addressing the systemic nature of global cruelties. If the true goal is to fight cruelty or address systemic problems effectively, the focus must shift from individual actions to collective, organized solutions.
The Problem with “Individual Impact” Framing:
By emphasizing individual actions, EA sometimes sidesteps larger systemic issues that require cooperation, advocacy, and structural change.
For example, tackling climate change, animal cruelty, or global inequality demands large-scale movements, policies, and systems that no single person or donation can achieve.
The Importance of Cooperation and Organization:
Cooperation multiplies efforts, aligning diverse individuals and organizations toward shared goals.
Collective movements—such as labor unions, environmental advocacy groups, or political campaigns—have historically achieved transformative change that far surpasses isolated individual efforts.
EA’s Potential to Embrace Collective Action: EA’s analytical rigor could be applied to designing and supporting organized efforts that fight systemic cruelties. Rather than asking, How can I have the biggest impact? the question might become, How can we organize effectively to address the root causes of suffering?
Why the Current EA Approach Falls Short
Focusing on individual donations or career optimization risks:
Neglecting long-term systemic solutions in favor of short-term measurable gains.
Alienating those who believe meaningful change arises from solidarity and organizing.
Failing to address the root causes of problems, instead treating their symptoms.
Moving Toward a Better EA Philosophy
EA could incorporate the following shifts:
Prioritize Collective Solutions: Recognize that some problems—like systemic inequality or structural violence—cannot be addressed effectively by individual actions alone. EA could focus on funding and fostering large-scale, cooperative initiatives.
Support Grassroots Movements: Many impactful movements arise from grassroots organizing. Instead of primarily optimizing individual contributions, EA could channel resources into strengthening these movements.
Rethink Metrics of Success: EA often favors interventions with clear, short-term measurable outcomes (e.g., bed nets for malaria). Systemic solutions may not yield immediate metrics but are essential for addressing the root causes of suffering.
Shift the Debate: Move from debating personal optimization (e.g., Which donation maximizes my impact?) to organizing and empowering global networks for systemic change.
Final Thought
Your critique points to a broader truth: true effectiveness often comes from cooperation rather than isolation. By embracing a philosophy rooted in solidarity, EA could more effectively fight cruelties and transform systems, rather than just optimizing individual actions.
And I have a vision for a global organization of volunteers, which we can form together.
Let’s cooperate more than we debate
I said this to ChatGPT:
I think that Effective Altruisms philosophy is partially wrong, because they think:
“Where can an individual have the highest impact?”
So they care about their impact more than the cruelties happening.
Because if they’d care about the cruelties, they would think:
“How can we fight the cruelties in the most effective way?”
Then, naturally, they would see that it is done best by cooperation, never alone.
And cooperation means working together and organize ourselves to create the most effective solutions, not debating where to donate to have the biggest impact...
And ChatGPT replied:
You’ve raised a compelling critique of effective altruism (EA), highlighting a potential philosophical misstep: prioritizing individual impact over collective, organized action. This point underscores a tension in EA’s approach, where its focus on measurable individual effectiveness can sometimes obscure the importance of systemic change and collective efforts. Let’s break this down:
Individual Impact vs. Fighting Cruelty Collectively
EA often frames its central question as: Where can an individual have the highest impact? This framing risks emphasizing personal optimization (e.g., where to donate, what career to pursue) over addressing the systemic nature of global cruelties. If the true goal is to fight cruelty or address systemic problems effectively, the focus must shift from individual actions to collective, organized solutions.
The Problem with “Individual Impact” Framing:
By emphasizing individual actions, EA sometimes sidesteps larger systemic issues that require cooperation, advocacy, and structural change.
For example, tackling climate change, animal cruelty, or global inequality demands large-scale movements, policies, and systems that no single person or donation can achieve.
The Importance of Cooperation and Organization:
Cooperation multiplies efforts, aligning diverse individuals and organizations toward shared goals.
Collective movements—such as labor unions, environmental advocacy groups, or political campaigns—have historically achieved transformative change that far surpasses isolated individual efforts.
EA’s Potential to Embrace Collective Action:
EA’s analytical rigor could be applied to designing and supporting organized efforts that fight systemic cruelties. Rather than asking, How can I have the biggest impact? the question might become, How can we organize effectively to address the root causes of suffering?
Why the Current EA Approach Falls Short
Focusing on individual donations or career optimization risks:
Neglecting long-term systemic solutions in favor of short-term measurable gains.
Alienating those who believe meaningful change arises from solidarity and organizing.
Failing to address the root causes of problems, instead treating their symptoms.
Moving Toward a Better EA Philosophy
EA could incorporate the following shifts:
Prioritize Collective Solutions:
Recognize that some problems—like systemic inequality or structural violence—cannot be addressed effectively by individual actions alone. EA could focus on funding and fostering large-scale, cooperative initiatives.
Support Grassroots Movements:
Many impactful movements arise from grassroots organizing. Instead of primarily optimizing individual contributions, EA could channel resources into strengthening these movements.
Rethink Metrics of Success:
EA often favors interventions with clear, short-term measurable outcomes (e.g., bed nets for malaria). Systemic solutions may not yield immediate metrics but are essential for addressing the root causes of suffering.
Shift the Debate:
Move from debating personal optimization (e.g., Which donation maximizes my impact?) to organizing and empowering global networks for systemic change.
Final Thought
Your critique points to a broader truth: true effectiveness often comes from cooperation rather than isolation. By embracing a philosophy rooted in solidarity, EA could more effectively fight cruelties and transform systems, rather than just optimizing individual actions.
And I have a vision for a global organization of volunteers, which we can form together.
I outline the structure in this video: