Thanks for writing this, I think itâs interesting to read case studies like these.
Recovery is not likely historically
As with many âp->qâ arguments, I think this one is true for the trivial reason that q holds independent of p. I.e. itâs true that itâs unlikely that people will identify as EAâs one hundred years from now[1] but that also was unlikely 5 years ago.
I asked Claude âWhat are five randomly chosen social movements which started at least 100 years ago? Give no regard to whether they still currently exist.â and it said:
The Temperance Movement (1820s-1930s) - A campaign to reduce or eliminate alcohol consumption, which gained significant momentum in the United States and other countries. It ultimately led to Prohibition in the US from 1920-1933.
The Suffragette Movement (1840s-1920s) - The organized effort to secure voting rights for women, with major campaigns in Britain, the United States, and other countries. It employed tactics ranging from peaceful protests to more militant actions.
The Abolitionist Movement (1830s-1870s) - The campaign to end slavery, particularly prominent in the United States and Britain. It included figures like Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison and contributed to the American Civil War.
The Eight-Hour Day Movement (1860s-1880s) - Labor activism focused on establishing an eight-hour working day, with major events like the Haymarket Affair in Chicago in 1886. It was part of broader labor organizing efforts worldwide.
The Theosophical Movement (1875-early 1900s) - A spiritual and philosophical movement founded by Helena Blavatsky and others, blending Eastern and Western religious concepts. It promoted ideas about universal brotherhood and ancient wisdom traditions.
None of these still exist, though three (suffragette, abolitionist, eight-hour day) ~accomplished their goals which maybe you want to exclude as a reason for movements to stop existing. So I asked for three more and it said:
The Back-to-Africa Movement (1890s-1920s) - Led by figures like Marcus Garvey and his Universal Negro Improvement Association, this movement encouraged people of African descent to return to Africa and promoted Black nationalism and pride. It was particularly influential in the early 20th century.
The Settlement House Movement (1880s-1920s) - A social reform effort where educated volunteers lived in poor urban neighborhoods to provide services and advocate for better conditions. Jane Addamsâ Hull House in Chicago was one of the most famous examples.
The Eugenics Movement (1900s-1940s) - A pseudoscientific social movement that promoted âimprovingâ human heredity through selective breeding and sterilization programs. While thoroughly discredited today, it was influential in early 20th century policy in many countries including the United States and Germany.
So the base rate for lasting 100+ years is either 0â8, 0â5, or 3â8, depending on how you want to classify the movements which accomplished their goals. This does not seem far off from the 1â5 success rate in your data set.
As with many âp->qâ arguments, I think this one is true for the trivial reason that q holds independent of p. I.e. itâs true that itâs unlikely that people will identify as EAâs one hundred years from now[1] but that also was unlikely 5 years ago.
This is a good and valid point for sure. I suppose that for the 4 failed movements I bring up in the post, they all failed to achieve their goals in their own terms and their ideas failed to influence other movements.[1] I think the q of âEffective Altruism ends as a movementâ is likely because the rate of dying out for all movements is 100%, just like it is for all living beings
So perhaps I want to distinguish between:
1) Movements that âdie outâ because they succeed enough that their ideas permeate into the mainstream and outlive the initial social/âintellectual movement
2) Movements that âdie outâ because they lose enough reputation and support that nobody carries those ideas forward.
This would be different as well from:
3) The Movementâs goals eventually being realised
4) The Movement being a force for good in the world
So The Chartists might be an example of 2 & 3 - after the 1848 demostration they basically completely faded from power, but by 1918 5 out of 6 Chartist reforms had been implemented. Itâs not clear to what extent the movement was causally responsible for this though
I think Revolutionary Marxism of various forms might be 1 & 4 - it was hugely popular in the late 19th and early 20th century even after Marx died, or the waning of power of explicitly Marxist parties, the ideas still had massive influence and can be casually traced to those intellectuals I think. I nevertheless think that their influence has been very negative for the world, but YMMV[2]
So I guess the underlying question is, if EA is in a prolonged or terminal decline (as in, we expect no early-Quaker style reforms to arrest the momentum, which is not guaranteed) then is it of form 1 or 2? Iâm not sure, itâs an open question. I think conditioning on an SBF-scale reputational damage and subsequent âevaporate coolingâ of the movement since, the odds should have moved toward 2, but itâs not guaranteed for sure and itâd be interesting to see examples of which social movements match 1 vs 2.
I donât want to get into a huge debate about Marxism or not, itâs just the first thing that came to mind. If you are, you could just substitute âRevolutionary Marxismâ for âNeoliberal Capitalismâ of Hayek et al in the 20th century, which had a massively successful impact on the Reagan and Thatcher administrations, for instance
Those seem like reasonable categories. I disagree with the antecedent but will rephrase your question as âwhat type of decline am I most worried about?â, the answer to which is â1âł.
In particular: I think itâs possible that AI will be such a compelling issue that the intellectual excitement and labor moves away from cause-neutral EA to EA-flavored AI Safety. This is already happening a bit (and also happened with animal welfare); it doesnât seem crazy to think that it will become a larger problem.
Thanks for writing this, I think itâs interesting to read case studies like these.
As with many âp->qâ arguments, I think this one is true for the trivial reason that q holds independent of p. I.e. itâs true that itâs unlikely that people will identify as EAâs one hundred years from now[1] but that also was unlikely 5 years ago.
I asked Claude âWhat are five randomly chosen social movements which started at least 100 years ago? Give no regard to whether they still currently exist.â and it said:
None of these still exist, though three (suffragette, abolitionist, eight-hour day) ~accomplished their goals which maybe you want to exclude as a reason for movements to stop existing. So I asked for three more and it said:
So the base rate for lasting 100+ years is either 0â8, 0â5, or 3â8, depending on how you want to classify the movements which accomplished their goals. This does not seem far off from the 1â5 success rate in your data set.
I roughly mentally tried to average the age of your case studies and thought that they were about 100 years old on average, but this isnât precise.
This is a good and valid point for sure. I suppose that for the 4 failed movements I bring up in the post, they all failed to achieve their goals in their own terms and their ideas failed to influence other movements.[1] I think the q of âEffective Altruism ends as a movementâ is likely because the rate of dying out for all movements is 100%, just like it is for all living beings
So perhaps I want to distinguish between:
1) Movements that âdie outâ because they succeed enough that their ideas permeate into the mainstream and outlive the initial social/âintellectual movement
2) Movements that âdie outâ because they lose enough reputation and support that nobody carries those ideas forward.
This would be different as well from:
3) The Movementâs goals eventually being realised
4) The Movement being a force for good in the world
So The Chartists might be an example of 2 & 3 - after the 1848 demostration they basically completely faded from power, but by 1918 5 out of 6 Chartist reforms had been implemented. Itâs not clear to what extent the movement was causally responsible for this though
I think Revolutionary Marxism of various forms might be 1 & 4 - it was hugely popular in the late 19th and early 20th century even after Marx died, or the waning of power of explicitly Marxist parties, the ideas still had massive influence and can be casually traced to those intellectuals I think. I nevertheless think that their influence has been very negative for the world, but YMMV[2]
So I guess the underlying question is, if EA is in a prolonged or terminal decline (as in, we expect no early-Quaker style reforms to arrest the momentum, which is not guaranteed) then is it of form 1 or 2? Iâm not sure, itâs an open question. I think conditioning on an SBF-scale reputational damage and subsequent âevaporate coolingâ of the movement since, the odds should have moved toward 2, but itâs not guaranteed for sure and itâd be interesting to see examples of which social movements match 1 vs 2.
Thereâs maybe some wiggle room around New Atheism/âTechnocracy, but the case is harder to make if you think theyâre causally responsible
I donât want to get into a huge debate about Marxism or not, itâs just the first thing that came to mind. If you are, you could just substitute âRevolutionary Marxismâ for âNeoliberal Capitalismâ of Hayek et al in the 20th century, which had a massively successful impact on the Reagan and Thatcher administrations, for instance
Those seem like reasonable categories. I disagree with the antecedent but will rephrase your question as âwhat type of decline am I most worried about?â, the answer to which is â1âł.
In particular: I think itâs possible that AI will be such a compelling issue that the intellectual excitement and labor moves away from cause-neutral EA to EA-flavored AI Safety. This is already happening a bit (and also happened with animal welfare); it doesnât seem crazy to think that it will become a larger problem.