Claims without evidence that “Donors will always look to get the most bang for their buck” despite evidence to the contrary.
Seems weird to mention longtermism but not animal welfare.
However, the article does get a lot right and I thought it had an interesting point about pluralism vs prescriptivism, and an interesting contrast between effective altruism and what the article calls “social justice philanthropy”
I’m not sure I agree with your appreciation of upper and lower cased EA. The article refers to “lower case” effective altruism as:
“A philosophy that advocates using evidence and reasoning to try to do the most good possible with a given amount of resources.”
That is EA and all of our cause areas and strategies have come out of that.
But the article seems to insinuate that some cause areas are somehow different to this philosophy of EA, being injected into us by people like SBF. The article defines “Upper case” effective altruism as “assigning numerical values to human suffering and the “worth” of current and future human beings”, which includes longtermism and earning to give. I don’t think this distinction makes sense, and I don’t think it’s good for the movement to oust unpopular areas of EA onto a different boat, like a plague that’s unjustified by the core of EA.
Near-termist vs longtermist EA is a neat distinction that helps when talking about the EA community and funding areas. But honestly I have no idea how the author of this article is drawing a line between “lower case” and “upper case” EA other than how the general public has responded to the movement. In my view of EA, everything is occurring in the same arena of debate under the umbrella of EA’s core principles—so it’s all “lower case”.
Despite the negative coverage of Sam Bankman-Fried, effective altruism (EA) is still a popular philanthropic movement. A YouGov poll found that 67% of respondents approved of EA, with 81% expressing approval among those who have heard of it. EA seeks effectiveness, which has been a cornerstone of philanthropic discourse for decades. Donors will always look to get the most bang for their buck, and top-down philanthropy isn’t going anywhere. EA speaks directly to that impulse. Despite the downfall of SBF, EA will likely remain controversial and embattled, but still a potent force in the philanthrosphere. EA is popular because it is a philosophy that advocates using evidence and reasoning to try to do the most good possible with a given amount of resources.
I didn’t find this to be a very high quality article because it seems to miss a few pretty important points.
Cites the YouGov poll without considering the limitations that most people don’t actually know what EA is.
Claims without evidence that “Donors will always look to get the most bang for their buck” despite evidence to the contrary.
Seems weird to mention longtermism but not animal welfare.
However, the article does get a lot right and I thought it had an interesting point about pluralism vs prescriptivism, and an interesting contrast between effective altruism and what the article calls “social justice philanthropy”
I’m not sure I agree with your appreciation of upper and lower cased EA. The article refers to “lower case” effective altruism as:
That is EA and all of our cause areas and strategies have come out of that.
But the article seems to insinuate that some cause areas are somehow different to this philosophy of EA, being injected into us by people like SBF. The article defines “Upper case” effective altruism as “assigning numerical values to human suffering and the “worth” of current and future human beings”, which includes longtermism and earning to give. I don’t think this distinction makes sense, and I don’t think it’s good for the movement to oust unpopular areas of EA onto a different boat, like a plague that’s unjustified by the core of EA.
Near-termist vs longtermist EA is a neat distinction that helps when talking about the EA community and funding areas. But honestly I have no idea how the author of this article is drawing a line between “lower case” and “upper case” EA other than how the general public has responded to the movement. In my view of EA, everything is occurring in the same arena of debate under the umbrella of EA’s core principles—so it’s all “lower case”.
This article is behind a paywall; do you have a summary that we can read?
Here are a couple of paywall-free archives (though if you get more value than the subscription price, you should probably pay?).
https://web.archive.org/web/20231208170421/https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2023/12/7/six-reasons-why-effective-altruism-isnt-going-anywhere
https://archive.is/dKMIG
Thanks!
Here’s an AI summary, courtesy of GoodContent: