I like it. And I’ll echo some others about my appreciation for it’s thoroughness and nonsectarianism.
Something notable though is it’s emphasis on personal sacrifice, as a result of being simultaneously a MacAskill and EA profile. Whenever I ask a curious acquaintance ”… well have you ever heard of Effective Altruism, by any chance?”, The response is invariably “Yeah!
I do know what the word effective means and I do know what the word altruism means!”
Don’t get me wrong, utilitarian demandingness is correct and right and drowning children abound. But it’s just one aspect of EA and I think there is and should be acceptance of internal diversity in regards to one’s position on this spectrum at least insofar as there is of short termism. Not to say MacAskill would disagree. But often there is a very visceral reaction to “altruism” and good doers (making the normies look bad! - economic game studies have even found downright spiteful, negative sum reactions) and the article may invoke that feeling.
I like it. And I’ll echo some others about my appreciation for it’s thoroughness and nonsectarianism. Something notable though is it’s emphasis on personal sacrifice, as a result of being simultaneously a MacAskill and EA profile. Whenever I ask a curious acquaintance ”… well have you ever heard of Effective Altruism, by any chance?”, The response is invariably “Yeah! I do know what the word effective means and I do know what the word altruism means!”
Don’t get me wrong, utilitarian demandingness is correct and right and drowning children abound. But it’s just one aspect of EA and I think there is and should be acceptance of internal diversity in regards to one’s position on this spectrum at least insofar as there is of short termism. Not to say MacAskill would disagree. But often there is a very visceral reaction to “altruism” and good doers (making the normies look bad! - economic game studies have even found downright spiteful, negative sum reactions) and the article may invoke that feeling.
Those are good observations.