Carnegie’s philanthropy really fascinates me. His support for the Efficiency Movement, for example, strikes me as a sign that he would have liked Effective Altruism. I also spent much of high school doing education policy advocacy and building online student/support resources used by thousands of students, so the exponential benefit of knowledge sharing very much resonates with me.
However, I often wonder: Would interventions that we retroactively consider “very good examples of EA” have been considered EA at the time?
For example, correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t think I’ve ever come across research covering education and literacy initiatives in an EA context. Global health research focuses on reducing disease burden, and not education or knowledge infrastructure initiatives that are comparable to what Carnegie did.
Some historical interventions like the eradication of smallpox or the Green Revolution fit quite closely within existing EA frameworks, but others like Carnegie’s libraries or Ralph Nader’s advocacy for seat belt and safety regulation strike me as harder to fit under current EA frameworks.
I think this is an important question to ask. If EAs in fifty years are applauding interventions that the current EA movement is undervaluing, then I feel that reflects a misjudgement somewhere.
Carnegie was an unusual rich guy. For example, he was a fan of progressive taxation. I did not know about his interest in Filipino independence. Thank you for that! Carnegie’s philanthropy was driven by his personal passions. He not only loved libraries, he was a really big fan of pipe organs, paying for 7500 of them, mostly in churches. One can argue philanthropists should take a more rational and dispassionate approach, but the reality is that that fund things they like and understand.
The interests of billionaires don’t always mesh well with the needs of the world but they can move quickly, and that can be important in developing solutions, especially in public health. I have really mixed feelings about the Gates Foundation’s response to the Covid pandemic. All and all, I guess I am glad they made the investments they did, but the power they hold in the field of public health is concerning.
I think it is worthwhile to examine past examples of what in retrospect might be considered EA, to learn from both the successes and failures. Ralph Nader is a good example of advocacy work that can reduce harm. Beyond car safety, Public Citizen did a lot of work advocation for safety in the field of pharmaceuticals and medical devices.
Carnegie’s philanthropy really fascinates me. His support for the Efficiency Movement, for example, strikes me as a sign that he would have liked Effective Altruism. I also spent much of high school doing education policy advocacy and building online student/support resources used by thousands of students, so the exponential benefit of knowledge sharing very much resonates with me.
However, I often wonder: Would interventions that we retroactively consider “very good examples of EA” have been considered EA at the time?
For example, correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t think I’ve ever come across research covering education and literacy initiatives in an EA context. Global health research focuses on reducing disease burden, and not education or knowledge infrastructure initiatives that are comparable to what Carnegie did.
And certainly, contemporary EAs could argue that Carnegie could have spent his fortune reducing developing world disease burden or reducing the risk of great power conflict. Fun fact, Carnegie offered to purchase the Philippines’ independence for $20 million ($700 Million today) and campaigned for Filipino independence until his death.
Some historical interventions like the eradication of smallpox or the Green Revolution fit quite closely within existing EA frameworks, but others like Carnegie’s libraries or Ralph Nader’s advocacy for seat belt and safety regulation strike me as harder to fit under current EA frameworks.
I think this is an important question to ask. If EAs in fifty years are applauding interventions that the current EA movement is undervaluing, then I feel that reflects a misjudgement somewhere.
Carnegie was an unusual rich guy. For example, he was a fan of progressive taxation. I did not know about his interest in Filipino independence. Thank you for that! Carnegie’s philanthropy was driven by his personal passions. He not only loved libraries, he was a really big fan of pipe organs, paying for 7500 of them, mostly in churches. One can argue philanthropists should take a more rational and dispassionate approach, but the reality is that that fund things they like and understand.
The interests of billionaires don’t always mesh well with the needs of the world but they can move quickly, and that can be important in developing solutions, especially in public health. I have really mixed feelings about the Gates Foundation’s response to the Covid pandemic. All and all, I guess I am glad they made the investments they did, but the power they hold in the field of public health is concerning.
I think it is worthwhile to examine past examples of what in retrospect might be considered EA, to learn from both the successes and failures. Ralph Nader is a good example of advocacy work that can reduce harm. Beyond car safety, Public Citizen did a lot of work advocation for safety in the field of pharmaceuticals and medical devices.