It always has been somewhat odd that EA never seemed to go on the offensive against the normies⌠Everyday people have the power to save multiple peopleâs lives, prevent obscene amounts of suffering of nonhuman animals and choose not to do so⌠and EA is on the defensive?
Your observation about the criticism tradeoffs is spot-on. EA has traditionally directed its criticism inwardâendless debates about cause prioritization, effectiveness metrics, and optimizationâwhile being remarkably gentle with those outside the movement who arenât trying at all. Meanwhile, SMA seems to flip this: theyâre saying âquit your bullshit jobâ to the broader public while maintaining more internal harmony through their Radical Kindness principle.
Thereâs something refreshing about Bregmanâs willingness to say what many EAs think but rarely voice: that choosing prestige over impact when you have the resources to help is a moral failure. The average professional in a developed country could prevent multiple deaths through effective giving, yet spends that money on lifestyle upgrades. Weâve somehow normalized this as acceptable while agonizing over whether weâre supporting the 3rd or 5th most effective intervention.
I wonder if EAâs reluctance to criticize outward stems from: (1) a desire to seem welcoming rather than judgmental, (2) an intellectual culture that prizes nuance over bold claims, or (3) a strategic calculation that gentle persuasion works better than confrontation. But maybe SMA is showing us that thereâs room for both approachesâand that being morally ambitious means being willing to challenge societal norms more directly.
The real test will be which approach ultimately creates more impact. Does EAâs internal rigor and external diplomacy attract more committed effective altruists? Or does SMAâs external boldness and internal supportiveness mobilize more people to action? Perhaps we need both spiritual siblings playing different roles in expanding humanityâs moral ambition.
EA used to lean more into moral arguments/âcriticism back in the day, but most folks, even those who were part of the movement back in the day, seem to have leaned away from this.
Itâs hard to say why exactly, but being confrontational is unpleasant and itâs not clear that it was actually more effective. OGTutzauer makes a good point that a movement trying to raise donations has more incentive to leverage guilt, whilst a movement trying to shift peopleâs careers has more incentive to focus on being appealing to be part of.
It might also be partly due to the influence of rationalist culture norms, whilst Moral Ambition seems to have been influenced by both EA and progressivism. (My experience has been that the animal welfare folks, who tend to lean more into progressivism, are most likely to lean into confrontationalism).
EAâs goal is impact, not growth for its own sake. Because cost-effectiveness can vary by 100x or more, shifting one personâs career from a typical path to a highly impactful one is equivalent to adding a hundred contributors. I agree with the EA stance that the former is often more feasible.
This doesnât fully address why we maintain a soft tone outwardly, but it does imply we could afford to be a bit less soft inwardly. I predict that SMA will surpass EA in numbers, while EA will be ahead of SMA in terms of impact.
I think this creates a false dichotomy between growth and impact. If 1% of the global middle class gave effectively, that would dwarf all current EA fundingâeven at 1/â100th the per-person impact.
More crucially, broad movements create the conditions for high-impact work to succeed. Try getting AI safety regulation or pandemic prevention funding in a world where altruism remains niche. The abolitionists needed both William Wilberforce and a mass movement.
Your prediction may be rightâperhaps SMA will have numbers and EA will have impact per person. Thatâs precisely why both are valuable. SMA normalizes caring about important problems; EA ensures the most dedicated people are optimally deployed.
I think the reluctance toward confrontation may also be because of collective personality traits of STEMs, they tend to work in the backroom developing stuff. The frontroom people who are more creative and social and do sales and marketing are the oneâs more willing to be confrontational or persuasive. Tech has both rooms, EA only has a backroom to its diminishment (which you can notice by the utter absence of art/âcreativity/âmarketing). I wonder what the personality spectrum is in SMA? You can tell by the contrast of their focus and culture in the article they are likely more of a blend of science & humanities, while EA is pure science.
It always has been somewhat odd that EA never seemed to go on the offensive against the normies⌠Everyday people have the power to save multiple peopleâs lives, prevent obscene amounts of suffering of nonhuman animals and choose not to do so⌠and EA is on the defensive?
Your observation about the criticism tradeoffs is spot-on. EA has traditionally directed its criticism inwardâendless debates about cause prioritization, effectiveness metrics, and optimizationâwhile being remarkably gentle with those outside the movement who arenât trying at all. Meanwhile, SMA seems to flip this: theyâre saying âquit your bullshit jobâ to the broader public while maintaining more internal harmony through their Radical Kindness principle.
Thereâs something refreshing about Bregmanâs willingness to say what many EAs think but rarely voice: that choosing prestige over impact when you have the resources to help is a moral failure. The average professional in a developed country could prevent multiple deaths through effective giving, yet spends that money on lifestyle upgrades. Weâve somehow normalized this as acceptable while agonizing over whether weâre supporting the 3rd or 5th most effective intervention.
I wonder if EAâs reluctance to criticize outward stems from: (1) a desire to seem welcoming rather than judgmental, (2) an intellectual culture that prizes nuance over bold claims, or (3) a strategic calculation that gentle persuasion works better than confrontation. But maybe SMA is showing us that thereâs room for both approachesâand that being morally ambitious means being willing to challenge societal norms more directly.
The real test will be which approach ultimately creates more impact. Does EAâs internal rigor and external diplomacy attract more committed effective altruists? Or does SMAâs external boldness and internal supportiveness mobilize more people to action? Perhaps we need both spiritual siblings playing different roles in expanding humanityâs moral ambition.
EA used to lean more into moral arguments/âcriticism back in the day, but most folks, even those who were part of the movement back in the day, seem to have leaned away from this.
Itâs hard to say why exactly, but being confrontational is unpleasant and itâs not clear that it was actually more effective. OGTutzauer makes a good point that a movement trying to raise donations has more incentive to leverage guilt, whilst a movement trying to shift peopleâs careers has more incentive to focus on being appealing to be part of.
It might also be partly due to the influence of rationalist culture norms, whilst Moral Ambition seems to have been influenced by both EA and progressivism. (My experience has been that the animal welfare folks, who tend to lean more into progressivism, are most likely to lean into confrontationalism).
EAâs goal is impact, not growth for its own sake. Because cost-effectiveness can vary by 100x or more, shifting one personâs career from a typical path to a highly impactful one is equivalent to adding a hundred contributors. I agree with the EA stance that the former is often more feasible.
This doesnât fully address why we maintain a soft tone outwardly, but it does imply we could afford to be a bit less soft inwardly. I predict that SMA will surpass EA in numbers, while EA will be ahead of SMA in terms of impact.
I think this creates a false dichotomy between growth and impact. If 1% of the global middle class gave effectively, that would dwarf all current EA fundingâeven at 1/â100th the per-person impact.
More crucially, broad movements create the conditions for high-impact work to succeed. Try getting AI safety regulation or pandemic prevention funding in a world where altruism remains niche. The abolitionists needed both William Wilberforce and a mass movement.
Your prediction may be rightâperhaps SMA will have numbers and EA will have impact per person. Thatâs precisely why both are valuable. SMA normalizes caring about important problems; EA ensures the most dedicated people are optimally deployed.
I think the reluctance toward confrontation may also be because of collective personality traits of STEMs, they tend to work in the backroom developing stuff. The frontroom people who are more creative and social and do sales and marketing are the oneâs more willing to be confrontational or persuasive. Tech has both rooms, EA only has a backroom to its diminishment (which you can notice by the utter absence of art/âcreativity/âmarketing). I wonder what the personality spectrum is in SMA? You can tell by the contrast of their focus and culture in the article they are likely more of a blend of science & humanities, while EA is pure science.