In general, I think the articleās main point was to promote Moral Ambition, not to be a criticism of EA, so itās not surprising that itās not great as a criticism of EA.
Not really sure how donating ~10% of my income to Global Health and Animal Welfare charities matches that framework tbqh. But yeah āweaponizeā is highly aggressive language here, if you take it out thereās not much wrong with it. Maybe Rutger or the interviewer think Capitalism is inherently bad or something?
For what itās worth, Rutger has been donating 10% to effective charities for a while and has advocated for the GWWC pledge many times:
So I donāt think heās against that, and lots of people have taken the 10% pledge specifically because of his advocacy.
Is this implying that EA is dead (news to me) or that is in terminal decline (arguable, but knowledge of the future is difficult etc etc)?
This just falls victim to classic EA Judo, we win by ippon.
I think this mixes effective altruism ideals/āgoals (which everyone agrees with) with EAās specific implementation, movement, culture and community. Also, arguments and alternatives are not really about āwinningā and ālosingā
So whereās the EA hate coming from? I think āEA hateā is too strong and is mostly/āactually coming from the interviewer, maybe more than Rutger. Seems Rutger is very disillusioned with the state of EA, but many EAs feel that way too!
Then you probably agree that itās great that theyāre starting a new movement with similar ideals! Personally, I think it has a huge potential, if nothing else because of this:
If we want millions of people to e.g. give effectively, I think we need to have multiple āmovementsā, āflavoursā or āinterpretationsā of EA projects.
You might also be interested in this previous thread on the difference between EA and Moral Ambition.
Feels like youāve slightly misunderstood my point of view here Lorenzo? Maybe thatās on me for not communicating it clearly enough though.
For what itās worth, Rutger has been donating 10% to effective charities for a while and has advocated for the GWWC pledge many times...So I donāt think heās against that, and lots of people have taken the 10% pledge specifically because of his advocacy
Thatās great! Sounds like very āEAā to me š¤·
I think this mixes effective altruism ideals/āgoals (which everyone agrees with) with EAās specific implementation, movement, culture and community.
Iām not sure everyone does agree really, some people have foundational moral differences. But that aside, I think effective altruism is best understand as a set of ideas/āideals/āgoals. Iāve been arguing that on the Forum for a while and will continue to do so. So I donāt think Iām mixing, I think that the critics are mixing.
This doesnāt mean that theyāre not pointing out very real problems with the movement/ācommunity. I still strongly think that the movement has lot of growing pains/āreforms/ārecknonings to go through before we can heal the damage of FTX and onwards.
The āwin by ipponā was just a jokey reference to Michael Nielsenās āEA judoā phrase, not me advocating for soldier over scout mindset.
If we want millions of people to e.g. give effectively, I think we need to have multiple āmovementsā, āflavoursā or āinterpretationsā of EA projects.
I completely agree! Like 100000% agree! But thatās still āEAā? I just donāt understand trying to draw such a big distinction between SMA and EA in the case where they reference a lot of the same underlying ideas.
So I donāt know, feels like weāre violently agreeing here or something? I didnāt mean to suggest anything otherwise in my original comment, and I even edited it to make it more clear I was more frustrated at the interviewer than anything Rutger said or did (itās possible that a lot of the non-quoted phrasing were put in his mouth)
In general, I think the articleās main point was to promote Moral Ambition, not to be a criticism of EA, so itās not surprising that itās not great as a criticism of EA.
For what itās worth, Rutger has been donating 10% to effective charities for a while and has advocated for the GWWC pledge many times:
So I donāt think heās against that, and lots of people have taken the 10% pledge specifically because of his advocacy.
I think sadly this is a relatively common view, see e.g. the deaths of effective altruism, good riddance to effective altruism, EA is no longer in ascendancy
I think this is also a common criticism of the movement though (e.g. Emmet Shear on why he doesnāt sign the 10% pledge)
I think this mixes effective altruism ideals/āgoals (which everyone agrees with) with EAās specific implementation, movement, culture and community. Also, arguments and alternatives are not really about āwinningā and ālosingā
Then you probably agree that itās great that theyāre starting a new movement with similar ideals! Personally, I think it has a huge potential, if nothing else because of this:
If we want millions of people to e.g. give effectively, I think we need to have multiple āmovementsā, āflavoursā or āinterpretationsā of EA projects.
You might also be interested in this previous thread on the difference between EA and Moral Ambition.
Feels like youāve slightly misunderstood my point of view here Lorenzo? Maybe thatās on me for not communicating it clearly enough though.
Thatās great! Sounds like very āEAā to me š¤·
Iām not sure everyone does agree really, some people have foundational moral differences. But that aside, I think effective altruism is best understand as a set of ideas/āideals/āgoals. Iāve been arguing that on the Forum for a while and will continue to do so. So I donāt think Iām mixing, I think that the critics are mixing.
This doesnāt mean that theyāre not pointing out very real problems with the movement/ācommunity. I still strongly think that the movement has lot of growing pains/āreforms/ārecknonings to go through before we can heal the damage of FTX and onwards.
The āwin by ipponā was just a jokey reference to Michael Nielsenās āEA judoā phrase, not me advocating for soldier over scout mindset.
I completely agree! Like 100000% agree! But thatās still āEAā? I just donāt understand trying to draw such a big distinction between SMA and EA in the case where they reference a lot of the same underlying ideas.
So I donāt know, feels like weāre violently agreeing here or something? I didnāt mean to suggest anything otherwise in my original comment, and I even edited it to make it more clear I was more frustrated at the interviewer than anything Rutger said or did (itās possible that a lot of the non-quoted phrasing were put in his mouth)
Yes, I think this is a great summary. Hopefully not too violently?
I mostly wanted to share my (outsider) understanding of MA and its relationship with EA
No really appreciated it your perspective, both on SMA and what we mean when we talk about āEAā. Definitely has given me some good for thought :)