Let’s cooperate more than we debate

[Josef]

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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:

1. 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.

2. Support Grassroots Movements:
   Many impactful movements arise from grassroots organizing. Instead of primarily optimizing individual contributions, EA could channel resources into strengthening these movements.

3. 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.

4. 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:

[Aleksi Maunu]

Quick comments:

• Debating effectiveness of different charities and acting collectively are not mutually exclusive, let’s do both no?

• Not sure why specifically cruelty should be the thing to look at, and why it helps more than looking at impact

• My impression is that the perspective of collective actions being important is less neglected in EA than you seem to think it is. Same for problems of using overly reductive metrics.

  • Maybe adding some background on the ways you’ve seen these problems in your interactions with the EA world would help

• A lot more concrete examples on what you think should be done differently would be helpful

  • What would EA look like if your view was more common?

  (I only read the text, didn’t watch the video)

[Josef]

Thank you for the comments Aleksi, your input helps me understand how can I communicate my thoughts.

• Yes we can debate and cooperate, but I think I see a way of cooperation that’s not taking place yet. I will show what I mean in a specific example bellow.

• Okay I see that for example a painful disease is not in a category of cruelty, so I will change to talk about “the worst suffering” from now on, because that is what matters (but I believe the worst suffering is caused by human cruelty, because the way us humans can make others suffer is worse than nature itself can)

• I think if someone’s thinking “How to have the biggest impact?” your perception of solutions is limited, compared to when you’re thinking: “How to solve this?” Imagine that your kids are profoundly suffering. You don’t only think, “How can I spend the money I have in the most impactful way to help them?” You think further… “How will I get the kids out of the suffering, no matter what?”

  Concrete example of what people in EA could do:

  Look at the statistics of animal and human suffering and dangers of possible suffering in the future. Instead of debating where to donate for the highest impact, we would take every big problem (human trafficking, testing on animals...) and organize ourself to work on solving it completely. That usually requires innovation + cultural change of how people think and live.

  When COVID hit, we didn’t debate where to donate or work for maximum impact. Governments locked us down and then we came up with vaccines. Proof of how huge of a change is possible when needed.

  If enough people would see Dominion (document about torturing animals in factories) and perhaps documentaries from their country, they would understand that this is hell on earth, far worse then COVID and if we would present them with a solution like: Let’s have a national refferendum, where we all agree that we will close these factories, we will eat much less meat for some time, only from local farms, where we will put more supervision, over time there’s gonna be more synthetic meat and more “ethical” farms.

  I believe this would be more compelling and would avoid arguments between vegans and meat eaters, that are lacking the point. Also would move to action those, who are usually paralyzed by feeling that their own action is super small an isolated, and not even worth the sacrifice when others don’t care.

  So EA could create an online workspace where we would organize ourselves to put this vision into actionable steps.

  We could organize professionals to prepare the plan for closing the factories and taking care of the animals, and also how could the whole thing take place legally, via referendum.

  Then we would prepare a compelling campaign for the referendum, put it on social media, and also create an online course for volunteers on how to persuade other people in their social circle or even on the street to pre-agree on a refferendum on our website.

  Many people would want to become a volunteer aswell. Once we would hit the needed number for a referendum, we would have it and the problems would be solved all together.

  The EA could create an organization for direct work of volunteers for these matters: rather than only having a debate on where to donate, which newcomers can join or learn from, we would have also prepared tasks for them.

  So they would come to the website, fill out their profile of skills and would be appointed a task.

  If they would be a lawyer—great! We are now in this stage of preparing a referendum, can you help us?

  If they would be a highschooler—look, you can edit instagram reels for this campaign to help us reach this number of people for this petition.

  If they are a sales person—help us with creating an online course for people to convince others to pay attention to a certain issue.

  This way, we could drive a big systematic and cultural change and in the end… have far more impact.

  What do you think?