Just a general note, I think adding some framing of the piece, maybe key quotes, and perhaps your own thoughts as well would improve this from a bare link-post? As for the post itself:
It seems Bregman views EA as:
a misguided movement that sought to weaponize the countryâs capitalist engines to protect the planet and the human race
Not really sure how donating ~10% of my income to Global Health and Animal Welfare charities matches that framework tbqh. But yeah âweaponizeâ is highly aggressive language here, if you take it out thereâs not much wrong with it. Maybe Rutger or the interviewer think Capitalism is inherently bad or something?
effective altruism encourages talented, ambitious young people to embrace their inner capitalist, maximize profits, and then donate those profits to accomplish the maximum amount of good.
Are we really doing the earn-to-give thing again here? But like apart from the snark there isnât really an argument here, apart from again implicitly associating capitalism with badness. EA people have also warned about the dangers of maximisation before, so this isnât unknown to the movement.
Bregman saw EAâs demise long before the downfall of the movementâs poster child, Sam Bankman-Fried
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)?
he [Rutger] says the movement [EA] ultimately âalways felt like moral blackmailing to me: youâre immoral if you donât save the proverbial child. Weâre trying to build a movement thatâs grounded not in guilt but enthusiasm, compassion, and problem-solving.
I mean, this doesnât sound like an argument against EA or EA ideas? Itâs perhaps why Rutger felt put off by the movement, but then if you want a movement based on âenthusiasm, compassion, and problem-solvingâ (which are still very EA traits to me, btw), then thatâs because it would be doing more good, rather than a movement wracked by guilt. This just falls victim to classic EA Judo, we win by ippon.
I donât know, maybe Rutger has written up more of his criticism somewhere more thoroughly. Feel like this article is such a weak summary of it though, and just leaves me feeling frustrated. And in a bunch of places, itâs really EA! See:
Using Rob Mather founding AMF as a case study (and who has a better EA story than AMF?)
Pointing towards reducing consumption of animals via less meat-eating
Even explicitly admires EAâs support for ânon-profit charity entrepreneurshipâ
So whereâs the EA hate coming from? I think âEA hateâ is too strong and is mostly/âactually 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! Pinging @Rutger Bregman or anyone else from the EA Netherlands scene for thoughts, comments, and responses.
In general, I think the articleâs main point was to promote Moral Ambition, not to be a criticism of EA, so itâs not surprising that itâs 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 âweaponizeâ is highly aggressive language here, if you take it out thereâs not much wrong with it. Maybe Rutger or the interviewer think Capitalism is inherently bad or something?
For what itâs worth, Rutger has been donating 10% to effective charities for a while and has advocated for the GWWC pledge many times:
So I donât think heâs 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/âgoals (which everyone agrees with) with EAâs specific implementation, movement, culture and community. Also, arguments and alternatives are not really about âwinningâ and âlosingâ
So whereâs the EA hate coming from? I think âEA hateâ is too strong and is mostly/âactually 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 itâs great that theyâre 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 âmovementsâ, âflavoursâ or âinterpretationsâ of EA projects.
You might also be interested in this previous thread on the difference between EA and Moral Ambition.
Feels like youâve slightly misunderstood my point of view here Lorenzo? Maybe thatâs on me for not communicating it clearly enough though.
For what itâs worth, Rutger has been donating 10% to effective charities for a while and has advocated for the GWWC pledge many times...So I donât think heâs against that, and lots of people have taken the 10% pledge specifically because of his advocacy
Thatâs great! Sounds like very âEAâ to me đ¤ˇ
I think this mixes effective altruism ideals/âgoals (which everyone agrees with) with EAâs specific implementation, movement, culture and community.
Iâm 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/âideals/âgoals. Iâve been arguing that on the Forum for a while and will continue to do so. So I donât think Iâm mixing, I think that the critics are mixing.
This doesnât mean that theyâre not pointing out very real problems with the movement/âcommunity. I still strongly think that the movement has lot of growing pains/âreforms/ârecknonings to go through before we can heal the damage of FTX and onwards.
The âwin by ipponâ was just a jokey reference to Michael Nielsenâs âEA judoâ 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 âmovementsâ, âflavoursâ or âinterpretationsâ of EA projects.
I completely agree! Like 100000% agree! But thatâs still âEAâ? I just donât 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 donât know, feels like weâre violently agreeing here or something? I didnât 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 (itâs possible that a lot of the non-quoted phrasing were put in his mouth)
Just a general note, I think adding some framing of the piece, maybe key quotes, and perhaps your own thoughts as well would improve this from a bare link-post? As for the post itself:
It seems Bregman views EA as:
Not really sure how donating ~10% of my income to Global Health and Animal Welfare charities matches that framework tbqh. But yeah âweaponizeâ is highly aggressive language here, if you take it out thereâs not much wrong with it. Maybe Rutger or the interviewer think Capitalism is inherently bad or something?
Are we really doing the earn-to-give thing again here? But like apart from the snark there isnât really an argument here, apart from again implicitly associating capitalism with badness. EA people have also warned about the dangers of maximisation before, so this isnât unknown to the movement.
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)?
I mean, this doesnât sound like an argument against EA or EA ideas? Itâs perhaps why Rutger felt put off by the movement, but then if you want a movement based on âenthusiasm, compassion, and problem-solvingâ (which are still very EA traits to me, btw), then thatâs because it would be doing more good, rather than a movement wracked by guilt. This just falls victim to classic EA Judo, we win by ippon.
I donât know, maybe Rutger has written up more of his criticism somewhere more thoroughly. Feel like this article is such a weak summary of it though, and just leaves me feeling frustrated. And in a bunch of places, itâs really EA! See:
Using Rob Mather founding AMF as a case study (and who has a better EA story than AMF?)
Pointing towards reducing consumption of animals via less meat-eating
Even explicitly admires EAâs support for ânon-profit charity entrepreneurshipâ
So whereâs the EA hate coming from?I think âEA hateâ is too strong and is mostly/âactually 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! Pinging @Rutger Bregman or anyone else from the EA Netherlands scene for thoughts, comments, and responses.In general, I think the articleâs main point was to promote Moral Ambition, not to be a criticism of EA, so itâs not surprising that itâs not great as a criticism of EA.
For what itâs worth, Rutger has been donating 10% to effective charities for a while and has advocated for the GWWC pledge many times:
So I donât think heâs 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 doesnât sign the 10% pledge)
I think this mixes effective altruism ideals/âgoals (which everyone agrees with) with EAâs specific implementation, movement, culture and community. Also, arguments and alternatives are not really about âwinningâ and âlosingâ
Then you probably agree that itâs great that theyâre 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 âmovementsâ, âflavoursâ or âinterpretationsâ of EA projects.
You might also be interested in this previous thread on the difference between EA and Moral Ambition.
Feels like youâve slightly misunderstood my point of view here Lorenzo? Maybe thatâs on me for not communicating it clearly enough though.
Thatâs great! Sounds like very âEAâ to me đ¤ˇ
Iâm 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/âideals/âgoals. Iâve been arguing that on the Forum for a while and will continue to do so. So I donât think Iâm mixing, I think that the critics are mixing.
This doesnât mean that theyâre not pointing out very real problems with the movement/âcommunity. I still strongly think that the movement has lot of growing pains/âreforms/ârecknonings to go through before we can heal the damage of FTX and onwards.
The âwin by ipponâ was just a jokey reference to Michael Nielsenâs âEA judoâ phrase, not me advocating for soldier over scout mindset.
I completely agree! Like 100000% agree! But thatâs still âEAâ? I just donât 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 donât know, feels like weâre violently agreeing here or something? I didnât 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 (itâs 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 âEAâ. Definitely has given me some good for thought :)