I’m currently a co-director at EA Netherlands (with Marieke de Visscher). We’re working to build and strengthen the EA community here.
Before this, I worked as a consultant on urban socioeconomic development projects and programmes funded by the EU. Before that, I studied liberal arts (in the UK) and then philosophy (in the Netherlands).
Hit me up if you wanna find out about the Dutch EA community! :)
I think you might be overestimating how much the NKBV offers as part of the basic membership. Most of their trips and courses, etc., are paid add-ons. What the €50 fee actually gets you is fairly lightweight: a magazine, eligibility to join trips (not free), discounted access to mountain huts (because the NKBV helps fund them), inclusion in their group insurance policy, and a 10% discount with a Dutch outdoor brand.
That’s not nothing, but it’s modest and it shows that people will pay for affiliation, identity, and access to a community infrastructure, even if the tangible perks are limited.
The EA equivalent could be things like discounted or early access to EAG(x) events, member-only discussion groups, or eligibility to complete advanced courses offered by national EA associations. If multiple countries coordinated, pooled membership fees could help subsidise international EA public goods such as the Forum, EAG(x) events, group support infrastructure, etc.
I think the key point is this: the NKBV shows that people are willing to pay for affiliation, even if the direct perks are modest, as long as the organisation feels valuable to their identity and goals. EA can plausibly do the same.
You’re right that EA’s current meta budget works out to far more than €50 per “involved person”—but that average includes the highly engaged core: people attending conferences, receiving 1-1 support, travel grants, and significant staff time.
A low-touch “supporter” tier is a different product entirely. If you ask someone for €50/year just to back the mission, receive a newsletter, and gain access to certain events, the marginal cost is minimal: card fees, a CRM entry, an occasional email, maybe a €5 welcome sticker. Even doubling every line item puts the cost at €10–20, leaving €30–40 net per person.
We could keep the high-cost, high-impact activities funded by major donors, while using a supporter tier as a lightweight way for sympathisers to express commitment and reduce funding concentration risk.
If I were to bet on what’s happened here, I’d bet it’s something to do with Thomas leaving.
Looking at his LinkedIn and his Forum history, he seems very well connected in the field of AI safety.
I suspect it was easy to get funding because people knew and trusted him.
EA community building relies heavily on a few large donors. This creates risk.
One way to reduce that risk is to broaden the funding base. Membership models might help.[1]
Many people assume EA will only ever appeal to a small slice of the population, and so this funding would never amount to anything significant. However, I think people often underestimate how large a “small slice” can be.
Take the Dutch mountaineering association. A mountaineering club in one of the flattest countries on Earth doesn’t exactly scream mass appeal.
So, how many members do you think it has?
Around 80,000. That alone brings in roughly €4 million in membership contributions—about 70% of its total annual income.[2]
Even niche communities can fund themselves if enough people are engaged.
Congrats on your first Forum post—really glad you shared it.
One quick suggestion: I’d frame this more as an intervention idea than a cause area. It seems to fall under broader categories like “improving human wellbeing” or “global mental health”.
I’d also question the likely cost-effectiveness of interventions here, at least in the near term. As you note, the problem is most acute in high-income countries, places where the marginal impact of philanthropic interventions tends to be lower. That said, as smartphone access grows and incomes rise in the Global South, these harms could become much more widespread, so this may well be a growing global issue over time.
You might find this post on violence against women and girls a helpful reference. It’s another example of someone exploring a neglected social issue and trying to assess it in EA terms (scale, neglectedness, cost-effectiveness, etc.). I think a similarly structured dive into the screen addiction issue—perhaps comparing potential interventions and DALY burden—could be a great next step.
Thanks again for posting and I hope you keep going!
Ah that’s great info! Would be useful to get similar numbers for EAGx events. I know the overall acceptance rate is quite high, but don’t know how it is for students who are applying for their regional EAGx.
Same. That’s why I’m glad CEA seems to agree with us about the need for a focus on sustainable growth.
Ah, got you. I think I agree. I only shared the EOSP data since Chris seemed to think it was relevant.
For what it’s worth, my current take is that top-of-funnel growth has slowed in recent years, but bottom-of-funnel growth is holding up well — likely thanks to strong top-of-funnel numbers in earlier years and decent retention.
This view is mostly based on data from the Netherlands.
We’re fairly confident that intro course completions in NL surged in 2022, but have been declining since. Data collection isn’t perfect, but these are our approximate figures:
2021: 45
2022: 402
2023: 298
2024: 190
These numbers include completions from uni groups, the national intro course, and the virtual programme.
Meanwhile, bottom-of-funnel metrics — e.g. GWWC pledges — are looking strong:
| Year | 10% Pledge | Trial Pledge |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 40 | 35 |
| 2023 | 36 | 52 |
| 2024 | 56 | 57 |
We haven’t publicly shared our strategy for 2025 yet, but long story short, we’re focusing on top-of-funnel growth.
I should hope they’re influencing those outcomes, otherwise they’re wasting resources! ;)
But I guess you’re saying something like, ‘We can’t infer much about the health of EA based on this evidence because this is an area where people are actively trying to grow numbers, so naturally it’s improving’. But this argument feels circular. If that’s the standard, it would be pretty hard to provide evidence that meets your bar. Unless your claim is something like, ‘A healthy movement doesn’t need to actively try and grow itself because it’ll just naturally grow’?
Or maybe I’m completely misunderstanding you?
Pretty well, according to Joris from the groups team at CEA.
The critique describes Ord’s proposal as antidemocratic and elitist, but the original quote is more cautious and open-ended. Ord does say that the Long Reflection might take place within intellectual circles, but he also explicitly notes it could involve the wider public. My reading of his position is that he’s deliberately neutral, essentially saying: “It could take many forms—from elite discussions to broad public debates—and I don’t want to commit strongly to any particular form right now”. The only clear stance he takes is that the process should involve humility, care, and efforts to avoid bias.
The critique also states that moral philosophy is at the core of Ord’s proposal, implying Ord is basically saying, “this should be led by moral philosophers” but that’s not quite accurate. Ord suggests that moral philosophy would play a central role, but he equally emphasises the importance of other disciplines. He’s not proposing that philosophers alone decide humanity’s future—he’s advocating careful and serious reflection that draws from many areas of expertise, including moral philosophy.
Basically, I feel like the author is assuming the worst of Ord.
Yup, I largely agree, I’m not sure why people are disagree voting with you.
That’s good!
Yes, he references quite a few EA case studies in the book and in his talks. From chats I’ve had with people involved, I think they’re being thoughtful about how they relate to the EA brand—trying to reach a broader audience without getting pulled into existing perceptions.
So that’s why I say if you’re thinking of using their work in EA outreach at a significant scale, I’d suggest checking in with them first.
Yes it’s quite exciting! One quick thought: I don’t think SMA/Bregman would be very pleased if EAs regularly started using SMA’s videos and ideas in their outreach (because they want to keep themselves quite separate). Maybe he’s changed his view on that (they’re organising an event with Singer and GWWC shortly), but it was certainly the case a year or so ago. If anyone’s considering doing this on a significant scale, I’d suggest checking with them first.
My Google alert for EA flagged an interesting article: ‘Visionaries and Crackpots, Maniacs and Saints: Existential Risk and the Politics of Longtermism’, recently published in Ratio, a peer-reviewed academic journal of analytic philosophy.
Since the author is a Research Affiliate and Former Research Associate at CSER, I thought they might have a reasonable and well-informed critique, and I was excited to read it!
Unfortunately, a couple of claims in the article made me question the entire piece.
For example, here is how the author characterises Ord’s Long Reflection, first in the abstract:
And then later in the body of the article:
And here is the relevant section of Ord’s The Precipice:
Yeah, as you conclude in your second paragraph, I wouldn’t describe CEA as simply “funding the meta cause area”. They don’t control major grant budgets (unlike Open Phil or EA Funds (although they have just announced EA Funds will become part of CEA)), and they’re not primarily in the business of choosing which projects get resourced (apart from choosing which EAGx events and national orgs get funding). Instead, their theory of change centres on building community infrastructure that helps two broad groups:
People unfamiliar with EA but who might be interested (via online courses, effectivealtruism.org, media relations, and supporting organisers doing outreach)
People already in the EA community (via EAG(x) events, the Forum, community health, and supporting organisers building communities)
I agree that democratising grant-making feels more experimental than democratising community building, although I do find manifund, participatory budgeting, and other forms of democratised resource allocation to be interesting.
I think it’s quite simple for local and national community-building orgs, and maybe also international orgs as well.
Many civil society orgs use a membership model—opt-in, small fee, basic criteria—with a general assembly, which then elects the board. National EA orgs could do the same. National orgs could then send delegates to an international general assembly that would elect the CEA board.
That’s interesting—my current understanding is that it isn’t the norm. It certainly isn’t in the UK or the US, which don’t really have national organisations despite them being key EA hubs. However, it is the norm in the Nordic and Baltic region, and I believe the Swiss, German, and French national organisations also have national general assemblies (though my impression is that they’re less vibrant than those further north).
And if local groups and national orgs should be democratised, why not CEA? I’d argue it plays a similar role at the international level: stewarding the community it serves and providing public goods for it.
Interesting ideas! What about democratising CEA itself by electing the board? And doing the same for other similar orgs (e.g., the org I work for, EA Netherlands)
You’re right to flag the risks of introducing pay gates. I agree it would be a mistake to charge for things that are currently core to how people first engage, especially given how many people first get involved in their 20s when finances are tight.
I think the case for a supporter membership model rests on keeping those core engagement paths free (intro courses, certain events, 1-1 advice, etc.), while offering membership as an optional way for people to express support, get modest perks, and help fund infrastructure.
I also think the contrast you draw between the two (mountaineering clubs = self-benefit, EA = other-benefit) is too simplistic. Most people who get involved in EA do so because they want to become more effective at helping others. That’s a deeply personal goal. They benefit from gaining clarity, support, and a community aligned with their values. EA resources serve them, not just the ultimate beneficiaries.
Likewise, mountaineering clubs aren’t purely self-serving either — they invest in safety standards, trail access, training, and other mountaineering public goods that benefit non-members and future members.
In both cases, people pay to be part of something they value, which helps them grow and contribute more, and then the thing they value ends up growing as well.