My primary concern isn’t that articles paint EA as good—it’s rather that they paint EA as what it actually is.
As for the particular article—I’m not exactly sure it’s untruthful in its depiction of EA—seems to me like the bad parts are the reactions to EA ideas. I also think it’s valuable as a conservative criticism in a sea of liberal ones—it’s relevant for how to expand the movement to a less represented audience.
I was with you until you said it’s valuable. Conservative or not, the criticism seems so to be written by someone who either hasn’t given EA more than 20 minutes of careful thought (despite writing an article about it) or isn’t capable of thinking in a sane manner. I don’t really know how to approach such people and I don’t think it teaches me much about conservatives in general (I hope not all of them think like this).
Seriously, what do you make of statements like this:
William MacAskill, a major effective-altruism booster, told the Washington Post that more should be spent on “preparing for low-probability, high-cost events such as pandemics.” That’s a bit like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.
When I said valuable, I meant “it tells us what conservatives may respond and how to address them, so it has value for us.”
Not “I agree with it or think it’s reasonable.”
Edit: to illustrate, the exact quote you gave is one I originally considered quoting myself, followed by a facepalm emoji. But now I know people might think what it says, and I didn’t before.
Most of the criticisms of EA may be more “leftist” than liberal. If you don’t know, “leftist” is a catch-all term for ‘left-of-liberal’ ideologies, i.e., ones thoroughly to the left of the mainstream of the Democratic Party, or even social democrats.
It’s no fault of EA to not understand the distinction well because leftists themselves are often barely able to distinguish if by “leftism” they mean some kind of socialism or something else, or where the dividing line is between liberalism and far-left ideologies.
Anyway, some of the more liberal movements, like ‘The Neoliberal Project,’ are among the few that are voluntary proponents of EA.
It’s no fault of EA to not understand the distinction well
I don’t know about EA, but I’m from another country with a different political map, so I’m trying to approximate US politics and don’t really dinstinguish between “liberals”, “progressives”, “leftists” etc.
In my country (Israel) we mostly think in terms of “left” and “right”, and economic liberalism is farily new.
Yeah, I’m from Canada, which is both similar and close enough to the USA for the country’s politics to be more understandable to us. There are others in EA from Europe who occasionally have some difficulty understanding the complexities of American politics too. Anyway, while it’s worth checking with some Americans in EA who might know better, my impression is that most of the criticisms of EA from the political left have been from those further left of mainstream Democrats in the United States (e.g., Clinton, Obama, Biden, etc.).
My primary concern isn’t that articles paint EA as good—it’s rather that they paint EA as what it actually is.
As for the particular article—I’m not exactly sure it’s untruthful in its depiction of EA—seems to me like the bad parts are the reactions to EA ideas. I also think it’s valuable as a conservative criticism in a sea of liberal ones—it’s relevant for how to expand the movement to a less represented audience.
I was with you until you said it’s valuable. Conservative or not, the criticism seems so to be written by someone who either hasn’t given EA more than 20 minutes of careful thought (despite writing an article about it) or isn’t capable of thinking in a sane manner. I don’t really know how to approach such people and I don’t think it teaches me much about conservatives in general (I hope not all of them think like this).
Seriously, what do you make of statements like this:
When I said valuable, I meant “it tells us what conservatives may respond and how to address them, so it has value for us.”
Not “I agree with it or think it’s reasonable.”
Edit: to illustrate, the exact quote you gave is one I originally considered quoting myself, followed by a facepalm emoji. But now I know people might think what it says, and I didn’t before.
I’m not sure I follow why conservative criticism would lead to expanding the movement to a less represented audience
It informs you on how to approach conservatives.
Thanks! Makes sense.
Most of the criticisms of EA may be more “leftist” than liberal. If you don’t know, “leftist” is a catch-all term for ‘left-of-liberal’ ideologies, i.e., ones thoroughly to the left of the mainstream of the Democratic Party, or even social democrats.
It’s no fault of EA to not understand the distinction well because leftists themselves are often barely able to distinguish if by “leftism” they mean some kind of socialism or something else, or where the dividing line is between liberalism and far-left ideologies.
Anyway, some of the more liberal movements, like ‘The Neoliberal Project,’ are among the few that are voluntary proponents of EA.
I don’t know about EA, but I’m from another country with a different political map, so I’m trying to approximate US politics and don’t really dinstinguish between “liberals”, “progressives”, “leftists” etc.
In my country (Israel) we mostly think in terms of “left” and “right”, and economic liberalism is farily new.
Yeah, I’m from Canada, which is both similar and close enough to the USA for the country’s politics to be more understandable to us. There are others in EA from Europe who occasionally have some difficulty understanding the complexities of American politics too. Anyway, while it’s worth checking with some Americans in EA who might know better, my impression is that most of the criticisms of EA from the political left have been from those further left of mainstream Democrats in the United States (e.g., Clinton, Obama, Biden, etc.).