You’ve got five points of contention or question, I will address them in order.
1) Systemic change and systems change are not the same thing. The things you outlined that EA engages with on a systemic change level, are things meant to make the self-interested system better. My greater argument, put another way, is that EA has the potential to challenge the self-interested system, but its too busy propping up the self-interested system to realize it. EA is operating within the self-interested system, just as communism and socialism have and do, reifying self-interest in the process. Its rhetorically oxymoronic and generally contradictory to claim to be an altruist while also explicitly claiming not to challenge self-interest; altruism is literally a challenge to self-interest, the only way you can define altruism without challenging self-interest is to make altruism a form of self-interest (which is what economics strained to do for generations).
2) I’m using the example of what Raworth envisions to say that altruism and all the other forms of reciprocity are what can get us to balance. There are a lot of other examples in the world, of course. I cut, for instance, another section on Hopi culture—one that to this day still practices implicit and explicit reciprocity as fundamental parts of their culture and modes of exchange. They’ve also managed a sustainable existence (balanced) for millennia in some of earth’s harshest environs.
From my critique: “If the entire world were populated by effective altruists, we’d make it to Raworth’s sustainable zone (the donut). But the entire world is not populated by effective altruists because most of the world can’t even envision themselves as anything more than self-interested beings fighting for survival, because that’s what they’ve been told they are...”
3) I don’t actually claim that altruism and other forms of reciprocity are unique to humans, just that it makes them distinct among species. There is no other species on earth that cooperates and practices reciprocity at the level humans do. I will argue this point, not that there aren’t other instances. New Caledonian crows use tools, but humans really, really use tools would be an analogy of what I mean by distinct.
4) The linked application of this critique to a cause exploration is literally an example of what I mean by a deeper rationalism. Very simply, I mean the over use of reductionism is making EA shallow and therefore, oftentimes/sometimes wrong and it need not be.
5) And I agree with your notion that the dualism of right/left “systems” change ideas is getting us… not where we need to be. That’s part of why I am approaching that as one system and suggesting, with evidence, that there is another.
You’ve got five points of contention or question, I will address them in order.
1) Systemic change and systems change are not the same thing. The things you outlined that EA engages with on a systemic change level, are things meant to make the self-interested system better. My greater argument, put another way, is that EA has the potential to challenge the self-interested system, but its too busy propping up the self-interested system to realize it. EA is operating within the self-interested system, just as communism and socialism have and do, reifying self-interest in the process. Its rhetorically oxymoronic and generally contradictory to claim to be an altruist while also explicitly claiming not to challenge self-interest; altruism is literally a challenge to self-interest, the only way you can define altruism without challenging self-interest is to make altruism a form of self-interest (which is what economics strained to do for generations).
2) I’m using the example of what Raworth envisions to say that altruism and all the other forms of reciprocity are what can get us to balance. There are a lot of other examples in the world, of course. I cut, for instance, another section on Hopi culture—one that to this day still practices implicit and explicit reciprocity as fundamental parts of their culture and modes of exchange. They’ve also managed a sustainable existence (balanced) for millennia in some of earth’s harshest environs.
From my critique: “If the entire world were populated by effective altruists, we’d make it to Raworth’s sustainable zone (the donut). But the entire world is not populated by effective altruists because most of the world can’t even envision themselves as anything more than self-interested beings fighting for survival, because that’s what they’ve been told they are...”
3) I don’t actually claim that altruism and other forms of reciprocity are unique to humans, just that it makes them distinct among species. There is no other species on earth that cooperates and practices reciprocity at the level humans do. I will argue this point, not that there aren’t other instances. New Caledonian crows use tools, but humans really, really use tools would be an analogy of what I mean by distinct.
4) The linked application of this critique to a cause exploration is literally an example of what I mean by a deeper rationalism. Very simply, I mean the over use of reductionism is making EA shallow and therefore, oftentimes/sometimes wrong and it need not be.
5) And I agree with your notion that the dualism of right/left “systems” change ideas is getting us… not where we need to be. That’s part of why I am approaching that as one system and suggesting, with evidence, that there is another.
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback.