When Sam Bankman-Fried was arrested following the collapse of his crypto trading platform FTX, a lot was made of the fact that he was a proponent of a philanthropic philosophy called Effective Altruism. The basic idea is that we should stop spending our time and money on causes and actions that feel like they make a difference, in favor of causes and actions that actually make the most difference. However, with its biggest advocate now facing 115 years in jail, and its reputation dans le commode, I’ve been wondering if Effective Altruism is a soulless cult, or a better way to do good?
I’m 91% sure we shouldn’t judge Effective Altruism solely on Sam Bankman-Fried. Whether SBF was unwittingly out of his depth with FTX, or more like a crypto Capone, perhaps we shouldn’t judge a whole philosophy based on its most notorious fan. SBF didn’t invent Effective Altruism, but even if he had, I’m certain we should be able to judge the movement based on its central idea – trying to do the most good for the most people – rather than have the whole concept live or die based on the behavior of a 31-year-old adolescent who had $26 billion but still preferred a beanbag to a bed.
I’m 79% sure Effective Altruism is often intuitive. According to PETA, plastic straws make up just 0.03% of the plastic in our oceans, whereas fishing nets account for 46% of plastic waste. If I didn’t know the numbers, I’d feel great campaigning to ban plastic straws, but if I did know the numbers, it would probably make more intuitive sense to focus where I could get the biggest ban for my buck. That doesn’t mean the banning of straws is pointless, it just means that if we could find a way to stop plastic pollution from fishing, it could make 1,533 times more difference than banning plastic straws.
I’m 85% sure Effective Altruism can be counter intuitive. I’m told that if our friends at Effective Altruism found out you and your neighbors were planning an unpaid day off work to build birdhouses in your local park, they wouldn’t be happy. I’m told they’d a) prefer you to go to work and earn money; then b) use that money to employ a couple of trained carpenters; and c) have the carpenters build brilliant birdhouses in the park, and one in everybody’s backyard too. Intuitively, that may sound entitled and lazy but if helping the most birds is your goal, it’s the approach that makes the most sense.
I’m 71% sure Effective Altruism is a little clinical. I worry that Effective Altruism misses the fact that feelings are an essential part of being human, and that not everything in life can be measured. Perhaps the sense of community we might feel putting up those birdhouses with our neighbors could turn into a local movement that delivered untold good over many years, whereas separately sending a couple hundred bucks to some carpenters might end up as a one-off thing. I believe the positive feelings we get from altruism are important. I think they’re nature’s way of making sure we do it again.
I’m 82% sure Effective Altruism requires effort. I’m almost certain it requires more time and research to be effectively altruistic than it does to do good the old-fashioned way. However, even though there is a higher barrier to entry that may put some people off, those people who are willing to put in the effort might be able to do a hundred times more good with just a little extra thought. That doesn’t mean good needs to become the enemy of great though. Anything anyone can do to make the world a better place is a net positive. And if it’s also maximally effective, then all I can say is good for you.
Adding that up with more art than science, I’m 70% sure Effective Altruism is a better way to do good, but 30% sure the old way works well too. I may be wrong – I often am – but as always, you’re welcome to disagree in the comments section below.
Having read, re-read your latest missive, I find that I am in agreement with you probably about 98%. While I am not in the least wealthy, or young, I find myself doing my best to accomplish one thing at a time. I guess I am not very good at multi-tasking for the most part. I entirely love the folks of all ages that seem to have the capacity to work towards several issues at once as it seems a good thing.
However, it also seems to take far longer to finish any individual task even when you have a type "A" whirlwind persona. BSF seemed to have the many faceted abilities that I wish I had, but I have neither the funds nor the energy any longer.. So I guess I would have to say my EA has gotten up and went, for now I just work on whatever is in front of me. My biggest thing I am trying to do, right now, is to convince 42% of the voting age population that if they all voted, they could make an effective change in our Federal Government.
So, all things being equal, I am 100% certain that I am not good at EA, but am pretty good at the old standby plodding along. Thank you for this one! Mitch, out
My main problem with EA (beyond the sort of Sam Bankman-Fried, Matt Yglesias "these glib, overly impressed with their own cleverness type people embrace it a little TOO eagerly") is the illusion of precision that it offers.
A lot off EA seems to focus on some nebulous far-off disaster, or sentient AI. It seems to me that tech types overrate the risks of sentient AI, and overrate their own ability to rate the risks of the future. For example if there's an (in your estimation) 0.1% chance that some particular future development will obliterate life on earth, you could use that to justify pouring all your resources into it, instead of focusing on things in the here and now (people and other sentient beings suffering), or use it to turn a relative blind eye to, say, climate change because the outcomes, while bad, aren't AS stark for humanity writ large as total obliteration.
There's a lot that's not great in the current non-profit/charity/good works/philanthropic sector but to me, EA sure isn't the solution.