My post is a philosophical critique of EA’s epistemic culture. The core argument is that our community has a built-in preference for the easily measurable, and I’m exploring the downsides of that bias.
On your points about proof (1 & 3):
The demand for pre-existing, legible proof for a class of interventions highlights the exact paradox I’m concerned about. If we require a high standard of quantitative evidence before trying something new, we may never run the experiments needed to generate that evidence. This creates a catch-22 that can lock us out of potentially transformative work.
On your point about existing orgs (2):
You’re right, these organizations do this work. My argument isn’t that systemic change is absent from EA, but that it’s on the periphery. It’s not central to the movement’s core narrative or funding strategy in the way direct interventions are. The question is why this type of work isn’t more foundational to our approach across all cause areas.
On your final question (the “root cause”):
Good catch on my “root cause” phrasing—it was imprecise. A better term is “foundational systems” or “underlying structures.” My hypothesis isn’t about a single cause, but that improving these foundational systems acts as an “impact multiplier” that makes all direct interventions more effective. The core problem remains that the impact of strengthening these systems is diffuse and hard to measure.
Thanks for this perspective. I agree that the idea of finding a natural balance is appealing.
However, I think this touches on a fundamental tension in EA. The entire premise of the movement is that the “wisdom of the crowd” in charitable giving often leads to suboptimal outcomes, which is why we turn to rigorous analysis in the first place. We don’t trust the crowd to decide between malaria nets and deworming; we use evidence.
My post is questioning the assumption that a “middle ground” is correct. From the perspective of a single donor’s marginal dollar, it’s always a 100⁄0 choice. My argument is that the asymmetrical value of a human life suggests that the most effective choice is consistently on one side of that trade-off.
So while the overall EA portfolio might be diversified, I’m still stuck on the question of what an individual donor should do to be most effective, and I’m not sure an appeal to balance can resolve that.