🔸
Michael_2358 🔸
Karma: 338
Along these lines, I work in finance in NYC and had been considering doing a lot more to raise awareness around EtG and the 10% pledge amongst the “Wall St” community. This group should be a natural fit for the pledge given the high taxes in the area, the inclination toward calculated and rational decision making, and the history of finance industry associating itself with philanthropy, like the Robin Hood Foundation.
I see EA as the natural extension of the Robin Hood Foundation now that we have a lot more data about the effectiveness of international giving.
It could be a community within the broader community. Which would also increase adherence to the pledge.
I agree it’s not >50% probability, but it’s high enough of a probability that we should be very concerned about it.
I’m sure I won’t do a good job of describing all the evidence in this comment, but here’s a link (https://youtu.be/dwtUoJfkHlQ?si=80d8M4e5e1y0P9UF) to a recent podcast in which a historian specializing in authoritarianism outlines how Trump is following the standard playbook of leaders, like Putin and Xi, who have consolidated power and made their countries less democratic for a prolonged period of time.
A key difference between the last time Trump was president and this time is that last time the military, the DOJ, and other government departments opposed his illegal requests on the grounds that their highest loyalty was to the U.S. Constitution. Trump has stated specifically he wants to avoid that resistance this time, which is why he is appointing his most die hard loyalists to the top positions in defense, intelligence, and Justice. That should be an enormous red flag.
Democracy is actually quite rare in the historical context, and there are many example of democratic governments turning into authoritarian governments. We should not assume that history is on our side.
Finally, it is clear that the current global trend is toward less democratic and more authoritarian governments. That may be because of information manipulation, globalization backlash, or other reasons. But it is the current direction of things.
This is why I direct >90% of my giving to farm animal causes like THL, MFA, and the EA animal welfare fund.
Fantastic piece. A lot to think about and digest. Thank you for writing this.
How can we best follow your work? Do you have a social media handle or email list we should subscribe to?
The FTX episode reminds me of Theranos, in that if I try to take a charitable view of what the founder was doing in each case, I could postulate they believed they needed to “fake it till you make it.” In fact, this is advice I have even heard successful entrepreneurs give other aspiring entrepreneurs: “fake it till you make it.”
Starting a new company is such a daunting and overwhelming task that those who attempt to do it are going to self select for certain traits. They will tend to be over confident in themselves, they will start endeavors without being sure of their ability to execute on them, they will be reluctant to give up in the face of evidence that they should, they will be charismatic salespeople who can convince others to join them in their efforts and customers to buy their products, and they will believe the ends justify the means in making the company succeed.
The biggest lesson of FTX (for me) is that given who entrepreneurship self selects for, and given the inherent challenges in entrepreneurship and the incentives that it creates, the ground is perhaps fertile for fraud and other immorality.
Obviously entrepreneurship is still important and I do not mean to discourage anyone with a good idea from pursuing it, but we should all be aware of the pressures it creates and the vulnerabilities to bad behavior.
Thank you for putting this together!
I don’t even think we are disagreeing anymore.
Obviously I agree that there can be disagreement on what are the best interventions. That is not a criticism of EA. The world is messy.
But let’s take a thought experiment in which once you decide that you wanted to use your limited resources to improve the world as effectively as possible, you could know exactly how to do that. In that world, I don’t think it should be controversial to do that thing.
To me, that is what EA philosophy is: a goal of improving the world in the most effective way possible. And that is why I say EA should not be controversial.
In the real world we don’t know what the best interventions so we have to make judgements and do research, etc. But to me those are all tactical issues.
The whole point is that to turn it into an either/or question is ridiculous.
The drowning example you give is good because it’s a real one. Drowning is actually the leading cause of death amongst 1-4 year olds (https://www.cdc.gov/drowning/facts/index.html) in the United States. Which is why people with backyard swimming pools have to put fences around them.
But if you saw a child drowning in a swimming pool and refused to save it because you could save more lives in the long run by addressing the systemic issues that make drowning the leading cause of death amongst 1-4 year olds in the United States, well…that’s what Crary’s argument is.
The basis for a lot of utilitarian arguments is the drowning child example (https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/child-in-the-pond/).
Alice Crary’s argument seems to suggest that if you pass a child drowning in a pond, you should let the child drown, because your resources and energy would be better directed at addressing the systemic issues that cause drowning. For example, why is there no fence around the pond? Why aren’t parents more diligent about keeping their toddlers away from ponds. It would be better to hurry past the pond and let the child drown so you can focus on these root cause issues.
Exactly, your last sentence. She think it would be better to leave the money in a savings account than to donate it to a generic EA global poverty cause because of the adverse effects. But these adverse effects are not cause-specific or empirical, but rather assumed based on the high level EA philosophy.
I agree EAs aren’t original and weren’t the first.
I do think it makes sense to separate tactics and philosophy.
There are people who say it would be to leave money in a savings account than donate it to a de-worming charity or AMF. One of the most prominent ones is Alice Crary. Here is a recent sample of her argument: https://blog.oup.com/2022/12/the-predictably-grievous-harms-of-effective-altruism/
None of those seem like critiques of the broad idea “I will attempt to think critically about how to reduce the most suffering.” Rather, they take issue with tactics.
So, they aren’t criticisms of EA as a philosophy, they are criticisms of EA tactics.
Also, as Peter Singer recently pointed out, no one ever said EA work was “either / or.” If someone has a systemic solution to global poverty, by all means, pursue it. In the meantime, EAs will donate to AMF and Helen Keller, etc.
So, the question then is whether we should sit on our hands and leave our money in savings accounts while we wait for a solution to systemic poverty, or should we use that money to de-worm a child while we are waiting.
Why would it be harmful to work for Wall Street earning to give? Sincere question.
Finance is like anything else. You can have an ethically upstanding career, or you can have an ethically dubious career. Seems crazy to generalize.
The bear market in stocks will continue, and the S&P 500 will decline an additional 30-45%. VC-backed and unprofitable early stage companies will continue to remain at the center of the storm as access to capital further deteriorates. The crypto bear market also accelerates. Open Philanthropy has to cut its spending target again and GiveWell again falls short of its goals. The EA community realizes how linked it was to frothy financial asset valuations.
EAs appeal to Warren Buffett and Mark Zuckerberg to consider filling some of the gaps, and one or both of them commits to doing so.
The period from which your data comes is anomalous. 2014-2021 was a massive financial asset bubble and VC backed startups were at the center of it. It will go down as one of the craziest periods of speculative mania and loose financial conditions in history.
Entrepreneurship is about to revert to its norm of being A LOT more challenging than people today currently appreciate. Do not make a career decision to become an entrepreneur based on an overly rosy view of your probability of success that is informed by recent times. Financial conditions are cyclical.
Donations to charity are already tax deductible. No illegal tax evasion should come into the conversation.
For the love of God, do not do anything illegal or unethical in the name of EA or reducing suffering. Please.
I agree that is the central point. I also agree going vegan is the morally correct thing to do even if it comes at a cost to health.
My point is that if animal advocates have a strategic goal of reducing consumption of animal products, I think they would be better served by being intellectually honest and sober rather than untrustworthy.
Thank you! This exactly what I was looking for.
Why did Open Philanthropy choose to exit the areas you mentioned? Did they offer a rationale anywhere?