Setting ideology aside and the fact that this particular critique would be expected from the Guardian a lot of it is in fact valid, in particular the point about “risk of capture by the rich”. Who is truly setting the agenda?
It reminded me of the relations between temporal and spiritual power in the Middle Ages.
Warmongering kings and lords used Christianity as an excuse for their escapades. At the same time, the Church used the threat of moral ostracism to tame the worst impulses of the ruling class.
Who was manipulating whom? It’s not clear to this day—probably a bit of both.
One thing is certain—no matter how ethical in principle, if your organization owes its existence to the largesse of a single billionaire, it is exceedingly difficult to exercise moral autonomy.
Even if the billionaire never makes any explicit demands, you know deep down that they could theoretically use the threat of withheld funds to get what they want from you.
As a utilitarian, you might even rationalize such a deal to yourself as the best available option.
A few possible paths movements that draw their power from moral legitimacy have found in the past:
diverse sources of funding
a broad base of support (through small donations)
being much harder on / demanding of the powerful. They will seduce the general population but not overtly court those with money and/or guns. Instead they will turn the tables on them, going as far as to have them kneeling and apologizing for their moral transgressions.
Should EA emulate those strategies? Perhaps not the kneeling, but there could be something to be learned from them nonetheless.
If you’re on the political left, you will probably have a stronger prior expectation that the excessive influence of individual billionaires like Moskovitz and SBF will move some funding away from what is optimal towards what they find exciting or interesting.
If you are on the political right, I think this prior expectation will be much weaker.
FWIW, I think funding from Moskovitz practically hasn’t moved away from what is optimal, and the only funding from SBF which I thought was spent suboptimally was most of the political stuff.
I’m on the political left, and going forward I think a good approach with billionaires would be to ask them to give their money to Open Phil or not be too personally involved with how their money is spent.
going forward I think a good approach with billionaires would be to ask them to give their money to Open Phil or not be too personally involved with how their money is spent.
This moves control from the single billionaire to a very small group (OpenPhil board). It’s one step in the right direction, but isn’t nearly enough.
Setting ideology aside and the fact that this particular critique would be expected from the Guardian a lot of it is in fact valid, in particular the point about “risk of capture by the rich”. Who is truly setting the agenda?
It reminded me of the relations between temporal and spiritual power in the Middle Ages.
Warmongering kings and lords used Christianity as an excuse for their escapades. At the same time, the Church used the threat of moral ostracism to tame the worst impulses of the ruling class.
Who was manipulating whom? It’s not clear to this day—probably a bit of both.
One thing is certain—no matter how ethical in principle, if your organization owes its existence to the largesse of a single billionaire, it is exceedingly difficult to exercise moral autonomy.
Even if the billionaire never makes any explicit demands, you know deep down that they could theoretically use the threat of withheld funds to get what they want from you.
As a utilitarian, you might even rationalize such a deal to yourself as the best available option.
A few possible paths movements that draw their power from moral legitimacy have found in the past:
diverse sources of funding
a broad base of support (through small donations)
being much harder on / demanding of the powerful. They will seduce the general population but not overtly court those with money and/or guns. Instead they will turn the tables on them, going as far as to have them kneeling and apologizing for their moral transgressions.
Should EA emulate those strategies? Perhaps not the kneeling, but there could be something to be learned from them nonetheless.
This is where I think your politics is relevant.
If you’re on the political left, you will probably have a stronger prior expectation that the excessive influence of individual billionaires like Moskovitz and SBF will move some funding away from what is optimal towards what they find exciting or interesting.
If you are on the political right, I think this prior expectation will be much weaker.
FWIW, I think funding from Moskovitz practically hasn’t moved away from what is optimal, and the only funding from SBF which I thought was spent suboptimally was most of the political stuff.
I’m on the political left, and going forward I think a good approach with billionaires would be to ask them to give their money to Open Phil or not be too personally involved with how their money is spent.
This moves control from the single billionaire to a very small group (OpenPhil board). It’s one step in the right direction, but isn’t nearly enough.