Thanks for sharing this, James. I havenāt read the book yet, so what Iām about to write is based on following RB and MAās activites on Linkedin, looking at the MA website and talking to someone who attended one of their online onboarding sessions. So please take some aspects of my comment with a grain of salt.
As an EA city group organiser, I think what would be helpful for me (and likely for other community builders) is guidance on how to position our work in light of the new MA movement. Iām hopeful that the two can co-exist and even amplify one another. Youāve mentioned that several of MAās co-founders have roots in the EA community (including one who co-directed EA Netherlands), which I personally find really encouraging.
However, I do feel some concern around the intentional distancing from EA (for PR reasons we assume), particularly the decision not to publically disclose the close ties between the two, the pretty blatant repackaging of the ITN framework under a new label (SSSāI found the third Sāāsorely overlookedāāa bit of a stretch!), with no mention as to the origin, the omission of 80,000 hours and now, (from what Iāve heard), the recent promotion of Effective Giving without mentioning GWWC, etc. Itās my worry that all of this, from a local community building perspective, has the potential to create real friction.
For example, I can imagine a Moral Ambition Circle starting up here in Barcelona. If we from EA Barcelona try to connect or collaborate, we may be met with confusion, or worse, even suspicion. People might say, āWhatās that you say? Youāre part of another movement doing almost the same thing? But with a way worse reputation? Why should I believe you given that thereās no mention of EA on the MA website, etcā. That lack of transparency could lead to mistrust, even if our intentions are aligned.
Anyway, Iād really love to hear your thoughts on how to navigate this emerging dynamic in a positive and constructive way, especially in terms of messaging and collaboration with MA. Thank you!
Update: I have since finished the book. Overall, I really enjoyed reading it, and agree that itās essentially EA repackaged for a broader audience, which I find genuinely exciting. After finishing it, I felt a renewed, strong motivation to continue striving to build a better world.
At the same time, the lack of explicit acknowledgement of EAā obvious influence still feels quite off to me. In fact, āinfluenceā is too weak a wordāitās clear that this book probably wouldnāt exist if it werenāt for the groundwork of EA. Others have said that Rutger speaks positively about EA in different contexts, so I canāt help but wonder: why not use this book, which looks likely to reach a huge new audience, to improve EAās optics, rather than reinforce outdated criticisms? Like, he mostly critiques EA for being too ānerdy,ā too focused on earning to give, and references SBF as a warning against extreme utilitarianism (fair), but to me it sounds like he got a bit put off by āold EAā and stopped updating his view on how the movement has expanded over the past few years.
Some things also come across uncomfortably close to plagiarism for my liking (maybe this is too deontological a stance for many people on this forum, but I believe in giving credit where credit is due). For example, the SSS model is essentially a copy of the ITN framework, but he doesnāt acknowledge that anywhere. He dedicates a full chapter to Charity Entrepreneurship and how amazing it is, without once mentioning its strong ties to the EA movement. Then later, in his one chapter where he mostly criticises EA, he says āoh, btw, remember that awesome organisation I mentioned before? That was founded through the EA movementānow, moving on...ā, as if it was soā¦ incidental. Heās clearly very impressed by Joey Savoie (fair) but Will MacAskill, Toby Ord and others donāt get much praise (unfair). And, the most serious omission in my opinion, is that 80,000 Hours isnāt referenced at all, except in a couple of footnotes, despite the bookās entire premise (and, in particular, the introduction) basically echoing 80kās core message i.e. āYou have 80,000 hours in your career. Why not use them to make a difference?ā
So, while Iām still overall very excited about MA and the new energy/ātalent it could bring into our work and shared mission, Iām still concerned about the pretty serious lack of attribution and the strategic distancing. I think it could make it harder for us to build bridges and create a shared, transparent narrative between these two clearly very aligned communities.
Hi Melanie, if I was a local EA group leader like you Iād feel more like you because it is awkward and something to have to deal with. But Iām welcoming the energy of it...I saw on Linked yesterday a picture of some new School of Moral Ambition enthusiasts in front of a bus that had the SMA name on it, and I knew two of them personally from EA circles and another whose name I recognized. One is an effective giving leader, the other Animal Welfare. Iām a Global Health person, and I think we are all not feeling that great in EA for the last few years as it starting leaning toward Longtermism and now AI...of course Iām glad we are doing work in those areas, but it seems like charity work has fallen to the side, and it appears Moral Ambition would move charity work back to the center.
I am encouraged that within well known EA effective giving funds, charity work is still represented, so as a bulwark infrastructure of EA, it is still there, but as for the winds of energy and movement, that all seems to be blowing toward AI right now, you can even see a post on the forum now about this dynamic. I have hopes to make a case within EA for more mental health funding in LMICs but it seems Iād be going against so many winds as to be almost an ineffective use of time...and if that were the case, you can imagine someone like me slowly fading from EA and going to Moral Ambition as a more welcoming place...but I agree with your premise that it would be better for us to work together.
The final thought is that with so many EAās feeling shy and becoming adjacent, I think I can understand why a person starting a new movement would make the clear decision to steer clear of the name mostly in their writing, while still having good relations with people behind the scenes. I find myself holding back on EA mentions when some of them drew negative feedback/ācriticisms...not something a new charity needs when building.
My starting point would be to give the MA group a good bit of breathing room here. Based on this quote, it appears that Bregman is intentionally trying to do something distinct from EA. I think thereās a lot of potential value in that approach, and would be concerned about interfering with it. That may change as MA becomes more established, but for now I think it makes sense for MA to focus on being its own thing with a clear separation from EA.
While I too suspect that some of the distancing is āfor PR reasons,ā I suspect there is more to it than that. The quote suggests that Bregman is aiming for a movement with a broader scope rather than focusing as much on the recruitment of elite, highly engaged individuals. I personally think that is a vast area that EA has been largely unable to tap (in part for cultural reasons), and Iām not sure if significant interfacing with EA early on is going to help MA tap it. Once it has its own culture and is more developed, MA should be in a position to work more closely with EA without being swallowed by it.
Of course, MA will develop its own weaknesses and turnoffs. But thereās significant value in those weaknesses being somewhat different than the weaknesses and turnoffs of the EA community. We want to maximize the number of individuals who will find a comfortable home in a effectiveness-focused community of altruism, and having the EA-like movements be too similar doesnāt move us toward that goal.
Thanks for sharing this, James. I havenāt read the book yet, so what Iām about to write is based on following RB and MAās activites on Linkedin, looking at the MA website and talking to someone who attended one of their online onboarding sessions. So please take some aspects of my comment with a grain of salt.
As an EA city group organiser, I think what would be helpful for me (and likely for other community builders) is guidance on how to position our work in light of the new MA movement. Iām hopeful that the two can co-exist and even amplify one another. Youāve mentioned that several of MAās co-founders have roots in the EA community (including one who co-directed EA Netherlands), which I personally find really encouraging.
However, I do feel some concern around the intentional distancing from EA (for PR reasons we assume), particularly the decision not to publically disclose the close ties between the two, the pretty blatant repackaging of the ITN framework under a new label (SSSāI found the third Sāāsorely overlookedāāa bit of a stretch!), with no mention as to the origin, the omission of 80,000 hours and now, (from what Iāve heard), the recent promotion of Effective Giving without mentioning GWWC, etc. Itās my worry that all of this, from a local community building perspective, has the potential to create real friction.
For example, I can imagine a Moral Ambition Circle starting up here in Barcelona. If we from EA Barcelona try to connect or collaborate, we may be met with confusion, or worse, even suspicion. People might say, āWhatās that you say? Youāre part of another movement doing almost the same thing? But with a way worse reputation? Why should I believe you given that thereās no mention of EA on the MA website, etcā. That lack of transparency could lead to mistrust, even if our intentions are aligned.
Anyway, Iād really love to hear your thoughts on how to navigate this emerging dynamic in a positive and constructive way, especially in terms of messaging and collaboration with MA. Thank you!
Update: I have since finished the book. Overall, I really enjoyed reading it, and agree that itās essentially EA repackaged for a broader audience, which I find genuinely exciting. After finishing it, I felt a renewed, strong motivation to continue striving to build a better world.
At the same time, the lack of explicit acknowledgement of EAā obvious influence still feels quite off to me. In fact, āinfluenceā is too weak a wordāitās clear that this book probably wouldnāt exist if it werenāt for the groundwork of EA. Others have said that Rutger speaks positively about EA in different contexts, so I canāt help but wonder: why not use this book, which looks likely to reach a huge new audience, to improve EAās optics, rather than reinforce outdated criticisms? Like, he mostly critiques EA for being too ānerdy,ā too focused on earning to give, and references SBF as a warning against extreme utilitarianism (fair), but to me it sounds like he got a bit put off by āold EAā and stopped updating his view on how the movement has expanded over the past few years.
Some things also come across uncomfortably close to plagiarism for my liking (maybe this is too deontological a stance for many people on this forum, but I believe in giving credit where credit is due). For example, the SSS model is essentially a copy of the ITN framework, but he doesnāt acknowledge that anywhere. He dedicates a full chapter to Charity Entrepreneurship and how amazing it is, without once mentioning its strong ties to the EA movement. Then later, in his one chapter where he mostly criticises EA, he says āoh, btw, remember that awesome organisation I mentioned before? That was founded through the EA movementānow, moving on...ā, as if it was soā¦ incidental. Heās clearly very impressed by Joey Savoie (fair) but Will MacAskill, Toby Ord and others donāt get much praise (unfair). And, the most serious omission in my opinion, is that 80,000 Hours isnāt referenced at all, except in a couple of footnotes, despite the bookās entire premise (and, in particular, the introduction) basically echoing 80kās core message i.e. āYou have 80,000 hours in your career. Why not use them to make a difference?ā
So, while Iām still overall very excited about MA and the new energy/ātalent it could bring into our work and shared mission, Iām still concerned about the pretty serious lack of attribution and the strategic distancing. I think it could make it harder for us to build bridges and create a shared, transparent narrative between these two clearly very aligned communities.
Hi Melanie, if I was a local EA group leader like you Iād feel more like you because it is awkward and something to have to deal with. But Iām welcoming the energy of it...I saw on Linked yesterday a picture of some new School of Moral Ambition enthusiasts in front of a bus that had the SMA name on it, and I knew two of them personally from EA circles and another whose name I recognized. One is an effective giving leader, the other Animal Welfare. Iām a Global Health person, and I think we are all not feeling that great in EA for the last few years as it starting leaning toward Longtermism and now AI...of course Iām glad we are doing work in those areas, but it seems like charity work has fallen to the side, and it appears Moral Ambition would move charity work back to the center.
I am encouraged that within well known EA effective giving funds, charity work is still represented, so as a bulwark infrastructure of EA, it is still there, but as for the winds of energy and movement, that all seems to be blowing toward AI right now, you can even see a post on the forum now about this dynamic. I have hopes to make a case within EA for more mental health funding in LMICs but it seems Iād be going against so many winds as to be almost an ineffective use of time...and if that were the case, you can imagine someone like me slowly fading from EA and going to Moral Ambition as a more welcoming place...but I agree with your premise that it would be better for us to work together.
The final thought is that with so many EAās feeling shy and becoming adjacent, I think I can understand why a person starting a new movement would make the clear decision to steer clear of the name mostly in their writing, while still having good relations with people behind the scenes. I find myself holding back on EA mentions when some of them drew negative feedback/ācriticisms...not something a new charity needs when building.
My starting point would be to give the MA group a good bit of breathing room here. Based on this quote, it appears that Bregman is intentionally trying to do something distinct from EA. I think thereās a lot of potential value in that approach, and would be concerned about interfering with it. That may change as MA becomes more established, but for now I think it makes sense for MA to focus on being its own thing with a clear separation from EA.
While I too suspect that some of the distancing is āfor PR reasons,ā I suspect there is more to it than that. The quote suggests that Bregman is aiming for a movement with a broader scope rather than focusing as much on the recruitment of elite, highly engaged individuals. I personally think that is a vast area that EA has been largely unable to tap (in part for cultural reasons), and Iām not sure if significant interfacing with EA early on is going to help MA tap it. Once it has its own culture and is more developed, MA should be in a position to work more closely with EA without being swallowed by it.
Of course, MA will develop its own weaknesses and turnoffs. But thereās significant value in those weaknesses being somewhat different than the weaknesses and turnoffs of the EA community. We want to maximize the number of individuals who will find a comfortable home in a effectiveness-focused community of altruism, and having the EA-like movements be too similar doesnāt move us toward that goal.