So far, I’ve just been trying to argue that effective altruists take cosmopolitanism too much for granted, and should more see cosmopolitanism as something distinctive about themselves.
True. I recall somewhat recently being surprised to find that a somewhat influential friend of mine believed strongly in a purely local approach. To paraphrase him at a recent event: “We’re helping people right now, right here—not halfway around the world.” The audience responded with massive waves of applause.
I worry a bit that “cosmopolitan” is a term that has “elitist” connotations.
I worry a bit that the way EAs communicate/market their ideas might be putting off a much larger segment of the population that relies largely on what Singer calls “emotional empathy” when making altruistic decisions.
I think it would be worthwhile to:
(1) look very carefully at the anti-EA hit pieces that occasionally pop up and try to understand the motivations/concerns behind the (usually not very well-argued) criticisms of EA;
(2) experiment with pitches similar to those employed by very popular and well-funded mainstream charities.
Speaking very broadly, EAs seem to have two main goals: getting more people to redirect their donations to more effective charities, and getting more people to donate more of their resources to charity. I think pushing both goals simultaneously is likely making EA unpalatable to most typical people, who might be receptive to moving their $20-50/month elsewhere but don’t want to be measured against someone who’s donating 10% of their earnings.
Meanwhile, we should be able to appeal to the high-empathy people who are probably feeling fairly lonely in their conviction. When I’ve mentioned my intention to go forward with a non-directed kidney donation, more people have questioned my sanity than have reacted positively.