Executive summary: This exploratory post argues that Effective Altruism (EA) appears to be in a period of decline following the FTX scandal, and examines five historical movements with similar trajectories—elite-led, indirectly influential, scandal-hit—to draw lessons about EA’s future prospects, concluding that recovery is historically rare but not impossible, and emphasizing the importance of decentralization and adaptive ideology.
Key points:
The author analyzes five historical movements (New Atheism, Saint-Simonianism, the Technocracy Movement, Moral Re-Armament, and Early Quakerism) that began among intellectual elites, rose to influence without seeking direct political power, and suffered reputational crises.
Only one movement—Early Quakerism—recovered from decline, aided by strong internal reforms and a shift toward decentralization, while the others either fragmented, lost relevance, or faded entirely.
The post highlights EA’s decentralization and lack of a singular charismatic leader as a potential advantage, contrasting it with movements that faltered due to over-centralized leadership.
Despite this, the most likely trajectory for EA is framed as “gradual evaporation”—continued existence but waning influence, with members quietly disassociating or shifting to more resonant ideologies.
The author suggests that the ideological explanatory power (or “hamartiology”) of EA may be faltering, and that its future depends on whether it can meaningfully address the problems of its time compared to emerging alternatives.
A speculative final note raises the risk of state repression in less liberal political environments, cautioning that EA may not be immune to historically common patterns of crackdown if norms continue to erode.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: This exploratory post argues that Effective Altruism (EA) appears to be in a period of decline following the FTX scandal, and examines five historical movements with similar trajectories—elite-led, indirectly influential, scandal-hit—to draw lessons about EA’s future prospects, concluding that recovery is historically rare but not impossible, and emphasizing the importance of decentralization and adaptive ideology.
Key points:
The author analyzes five historical movements (New Atheism, Saint-Simonianism, the Technocracy Movement, Moral Re-Armament, and Early Quakerism) that began among intellectual elites, rose to influence without seeking direct political power, and suffered reputational crises.
Only one movement—Early Quakerism—recovered from decline, aided by strong internal reforms and a shift toward decentralization, while the others either fragmented, lost relevance, or faded entirely.
The post highlights EA’s decentralization and lack of a singular charismatic leader as a potential advantage, contrasting it with movements that faltered due to over-centralized leadership.
Despite this, the most likely trajectory for EA is framed as “gradual evaporation”—continued existence but waning influence, with members quietly disassociating or shifting to more resonant ideologies.
The author suggests that the ideological explanatory power (or “hamartiology”) of EA may be faltering, and that its future depends on whether it can meaningfully address the problems of its time compared to emerging alternatives.
A speculative final note raises the risk of state repression in less liberal political environments, cautioning that EA may not be immune to historically common patterns of crackdown if norms continue to erode.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.