This is my first post, as despite being aware of EA for quite some time, I’ve always been sceptical of it for reasons hinted at in this article. Inevitably, after reading a bit of EA stuff I start to think, “But what about power?” There seems to be an unwillingness to talk about power: how it’s exercised, how it can be controlled, how “we” can take control. I find the notion comical that you can consort with billionaires and retain even an iota of power. These are people who control more wealth than most of us can even understand. I find it similarly absurd to talk about donating to the Democrats as pro-tax. US democracy is crumbling and giving money to the hopelessly compromised and comically incompetent crew who are unwilling and unable to do anything about it—and who largely benefit from the system—isn’t going to do anything to change that.
I’ll finish by pointing out that I am here, and that what attracts me to EA and has drawn me here, is the sense that beneath the naivete about power there is an open mindedness. I think EA might present the opportunity to have outcome-focused conversations about power in a manner less bound by dogma or “realism” than other forums. And yes, I look forward to my argument being challenged with evidence of good EA writing on power!
Lol I’ve lost a lot due to recent events, so on a personal level part of me really want to just agree with you and just say that we should wash our hands and agree to not interact with billionaires.
But I don’t know, I guess I still think I have at least an iota of power still. So I think the comment you replied to is still literally correct.
And I think it’s correct in spirit too, if maybe not for me personally.
Like, I think some other EAs who talk to billionaires have some power, though I guess I could be more cynical and I don’t know what constraints they’re operating on. Still, e.g. there are at least millions of bednets that would not be possible without consorting with Good Ventures and money that implicitly came from Facebook and Asana.
At the time I find the comment I replied to literally false. I still believe this.
I agree with you that the original comment, taken literally, is probably false and that EAs consorting with billionaires can still retain some power.
But I think the original comment by Berta had a good point in that there seemed to be a general naivete by EA about power and other people’s intentions. However, that is just from my vantage point as someone who does not work at an EA org and is not in any inner EA circle.
I think recent events have definitely lowered the general level of trust within the EA community. But that is not necessarily a good thing and I hope EA does not overcorrect, either. Getting the balance right will be tricky, but I think Berta was on the right track in that EA could benefit from thinking and talking about power more.
I think EAs should spend more time engaging with how to more evenly distribute power between different agents, but I think the best thinking on this is in the tradition of internationalist libertarian socialism, not in the mainstream American left.
I don’t think EAs should adopt the idea popular amongst American liberals, that giving more money to the US government, which is probably the world’s most powerful agent with a strong history of interfering with democracy in other countries, and was until recently run by Donald Trump, is an improvement on the status quo of billionaires having more power than they ideally should.
I’ll do a post on “what EA can learn from libertarian socialism” at some point.
EDIT: I do think there’s a case to be made that “evenly distributing power to reduce risks from reckless profit maximisation and authoritarianism” isn’t neglected, and is why EA doesn’t have much writing on it.
Thanks for contributing this critique, your invitation for argument, and your open-mindedness!
I think one important inequality in the distribution of power is that between presently living people and future generations. The latter have not only no political power, but no direct causal power at all. While we might decry a world where we have to persuade or compel billionaires -- or seek to become billionaires ourselves—to have much hope at large-scale influence, these tools are much better than anything future generations have got. Our power over future generations is asymmetric and terrifying: their mere existence may depend on our present choices. To the extent that we might care about the distribution of power intrinsically and not just because of the effects on welfare (I don’t personally find this view compelling), it seems like the highest priority redistributions of power are to those who have the least at present. One avenue of EA research I am excited about focuses on how we can build institutions and new systems of power to represent the interests of future generations in present political arrangements. You might also be interested in this analysis of opportunities for improving institutions by the Effective Institutions Project—which I think is very good EA writing on power.
Animals find themselves in a somewhat similar political situation to future generations: that is, basically powerless. Albeit for different reasons, of course.
This is my first post, as despite being aware of EA for quite some time, I’ve always been sceptical of it for reasons hinted at in this article. Inevitably, after reading a bit of EA stuff I start to think, “But what about power?” There seems to be an unwillingness to talk about power: how it’s exercised, how it can be controlled, how “we” can take control. I find the notion comical that you can consort with billionaires and retain even an iota of power. These are people who control more wealth than most of us can even understand. I find it similarly absurd to talk about donating to the Democrats as pro-tax. US democracy is crumbling and giving money to the hopelessly compromised and comically incompetent crew who are unwilling and unable to do anything about it—and who largely benefit from the system—isn’t going to do anything to change that.
I’ll finish by pointing out that I am here, and that what attracts me to EA and has drawn me here, is the sense that beneath the naivete about power there is an open mindedness. I think EA might present the opportunity to have outcome-focused conversations about power in a manner less bound by dogma or “realism” than other forums. And yes, I look forward to my argument being challenged with evidence of good EA writing on power!
I don’t think this matches EA’s historical experience of talking to billionaires fwiw.
I’ve just been reading up on earlier EA forum posts about democracy and billionaire spending in light of the FTX saga that broke this week.
This comment did not age well.
Lol I’ve lost a lot due to recent events, so on a personal level part of me really want to just agree with you and just say that we should wash our hands and agree to not interact with billionaires.
But I don’t know, I guess I still think I have at least an iota of power still. So I think the comment you replied to is still literally correct.
And I think it’s correct in spirit too, if maybe not for me personally.
Like, I think some other EAs who talk to billionaires have some power, though I guess I could be more cynical and I don’t know what constraints they’re operating on. Still, e.g. there are at least millions of bednets that would not be possible without consorting with Good Ventures and money that implicitly came from Facebook and Asana.
At the time I find the comment I replied to literally false. I still believe this.
I agree with you that the original comment, taken literally, is probably false and that EAs consorting with billionaires can still retain some power.
But I think the original comment by Berta had a good point in that there seemed to be a general naivete by EA about power and other people’s intentions. However, that is just from my vantage point as someone who does not work at an EA org and is not in any inner EA circle.
I think recent events have definitely lowered the general level of trust within the EA community. But that is not necessarily a good thing and I hope EA does not overcorrect, either. Getting the balance right will be tricky, but I think Berta was on the right track in that EA could benefit from thinking and talking about power more.
Thanks. Re:
I’ve updated slightly downwards on the value of special information for what it’s worth. Especially my own.
I think EAs should spend more time engaging with how to more evenly distribute power between different agents, but I think the best thinking on this is in the tradition of internationalist libertarian socialism, not in the mainstream American left.
I don’t think EAs should adopt the idea popular amongst American liberals, that giving more money to the US government, which is probably the world’s most powerful agent with a strong history of interfering with democracy in other countries, and was until recently run by Donald Trump, is an improvement on the status quo of billionaires having more power than they ideally should.
I’ll do a post on “what EA can learn from libertarian socialism” at some point.
EDIT: I do think there’s a case to be made that “evenly distributing power to reduce risks from reckless profit maximisation and authoritarianism” isn’t neglected, and is why EA doesn’t have much writing on it.
Thanks for contributing this critique, your invitation for argument, and your open-mindedness!
I think one important inequality in the distribution of power is that between presently living people and future generations. The latter have not only no political power, but no direct causal power at all. While we might decry a world where we have to persuade or compel billionaires -- or seek to become billionaires ourselves—to have much hope at large-scale influence, these tools are much better than anything future generations have got. Our power over future generations is asymmetric and terrifying: their mere existence may depend on our present choices. To the extent that we might care about the distribution of power intrinsically and not just because of the effects on welfare (I don’t personally find this view compelling), it seems like the highest priority redistributions of power are to those who have the least at present. One avenue of EA research I am excited about focuses on how we can build institutions and new systems of power to represent the interests of future generations in present political arrangements. You might also be interested in this analysis of opportunities for improving institutions by the Effective Institutions Project—which I think is very good EA writing on power.
Animals find themselves in a somewhat similar political situation to future generations: that is, basically powerless. Albeit for different reasons, of course.
Congrats on the first post and welcome to the forum!! I look forward to hearing views on EA and power. :-)