You asked 6 questions in your post; I will try to answer them (even the rhetorical judgmental ones).
Before I do, you surely know that SWP was featured on the daily show, and Ronnie Chieng said it better than I ever could have hoped to:
Chieng: So you decided to dedicate all your time and money into saving the lives of shrimp... Zorrilla: Not quite. We’re actually working to reduce the suffering when they die... Chieng: So after all your work is done, they still die? Zorrilla: Yes, less painfully. Chieng: How did you make this even stupider?
Q: …how [well-meaning person who wants to make the world better] reach such a conclusion about Effective Altruism?
A: This isn’t an honest question. The video covers the scale and horror of the shrimp industry, and EA’s response to it is to do the killing more effectively? There’s an irony here.
Q: What are we doing wrong in the framing of EA which makes certain people become so critical of the movement, and what make the “negatives” stand out so much more?
A: It’s not the framing of EA where it’s going wrong...it’s the foundation. The exclusive thrust of “Animal Welfare” is about not trying to stop or even reduce animal deaths, but rather, make them ostensibly less painful.
Q: I am wondering how people are capable to with a clean conscience sit in their living room eating shrimp which they literally made a segment about how much suffering goes through, while tarnishing a movement actively making the world a better place?
A: Reminder that you think making the world a better place is implemented by killing beings more effectively, not by eliminating the killing in the first place. Not everyone would agree with that thought process.
Q: Is it perhaps because some of the conclusions of utilitarianism are so insanely uncomfortable that we seem like psychos?
A: Here’s a simple thought experiment: you are a shrimp. A human with a dollar is nearby. Do you, as a shrimp, want the person to spend that dollar on possibly preventing your death? Or do you, as a shrimp, want that person to instead spend that dollar to possibly make you suffer less when you die? It’s psycho to take the death as a foregone conclusion and just focus on the pain of it.
Q: Or perhaps there are only specific kind of people who are compatible with Effective Altruist thinking?
A: Yes. The kind of person who would get 0% correct on a yes/no multiple choice test sums up the foundation of Effective Altruist thinking. Even someone ignorant should get 50% correct. Imagine getting worse than that! It would take someone who is confidently incorrect. It’s worth considering.
Q: Maybe the movement has reached a cap in terms of its size?
A: We can only hope!
Also, happy easter, except probably not for the 400B shrimp who have died since last easter :(
Brother, of course EA also works towards reducing shrimp deaths. Most EAs are vegan and try to spread veganism, but decreasing the suffering of the shrimp who will be killed anyway is an efficient way of decreasing suffering in the world. To your 0% multiple choice thing, like what even is that, its just alienating, and not even accurate to any extent, a big part of EA is to adopt a scout mindset and be better at estimating probabilities and having an as accurate picture of the world as possible.
I am curious what is your alternative is to effective altruism? How do we improve the world in a better way?
Trym,
You asked 6 questions in your post; I will try to answer them (even the rhetorical judgmental ones).
Before I do, you surely know that SWP was featured on the daily show, and Ronnie Chieng said it better than I ever could have hoped to:
Chieng: So you decided to dedicate all your time and money into saving the lives of shrimp...
Zorrilla: Not quite. We’re actually working to reduce the suffering when they die...
Chieng: So after all your work is done, they still die?
Zorrilla: Yes, less painfully.
Chieng: How did you make this even stupider?
Q: …how [well-meaning person who wants to make the world better] reach such a conclusion about Effective Altruism?
A: This isn’t an honest question. The video covers the scale and horror of the shrimp industry, and EA’s response to it is to do the killing more effectively? There’s an irony here.
Q: What are we doing wrong in the framing of EA which makes certain people become so critical of the movement, and what make the “negatives” stand out so much more?
A: It’s not the framing of EA where it’s going wrong...it’s the foundation. The exclusive thrust of “Animal Welfare” is about not trying to stop or even reduce animal deaths, but rather, make them ostensibly less painful.
Q: I am wondering how people are capable to with a clean conscience sit in their living room eating shrimp which they literally made a segment about how much suffering goes through, while tarnishing a movement actively making the world a better place?
A: Reminder that you think making the world a better place is implemented by killing beings more effectively, not by eliminating the killing in the first place. Not everyone would agree with that thought process.
Q: Is it perhaps because some of the conclusions of utilitarianism are so insanely uncomfortable that we seem like psychos?
A: Here’s a simple thought experiment: you are a shrimp. A human with a dollar is nearby. Do you, as a shrimp, want the person to spend that dollar on possibly preventing your death? Or do you, as a shrimp, want that person to instead spend that dollar to possibly make you suffer less when you die? It’s psycho to take the death as a foregone conclusion and just focus on the pain of it.
Q: Or perhaps there are only specific kind of people who are compatible with Effective Altruist thinking?
A: Yes. The kind of person who would get 0% correct on a yes/no multiple choice test sums up the foundation of Effective Altruist thinking. Even someone ignorant should get 50% correct. Imagine getting worse than that! It would take someone who is confidently incorrect. It’s worth considering.
Q: Maybe the movement has reached a cap in terms of its size?
A: We can only hope!
Also, happy easter, except probably not for the 400B shrimp who have died since last easter :(
Also, Art Chad literally ate shrimp in his video, so he is clearly not agreeing with you that we should prevent them from dying.
Brother, of course EA also works towards reducing shrimp deaths. Most EAs are vegan and try to spread veganism, but decreasing the suffering of the shrimp who will be killed anyway is an efficient way of decreasing suffering in the world. To your 0% multiple choice thing, like what even is that, its just alienating, and not even accurate to any extent, a big part of EA is to adopt a scout mindset and be better at estimating probabilities and having an as accurate picture of the world as possible.
I am curious what is your alternative is to effective altruism? How do we improve the world in a better way?