1. What purpose does it serve? Charity has always existed. I don't need anyone, least of all these weirdos, to tell me how to give money away. EA is a political movement consisting of elites who attempt to convince other elites to adapt their pref…
1. What purpose does it serve? Charity has always existed. I don't need anyone, least of all these weirdos, to tell me how to give money away. EA is a political movement consisting of elites who attempt to convince other elites to adapt their preferred values and implement their policy preferences. It is not a popular movement and does not even try to be.
By definition altruism is a personal choice. "Effective" how? By what criteria? That's subjective!
EA is a way to push political causes under the guise of being scientific and rational. I've seen this racket before. At its best, it sounds like economics, but what's concerning is that it often pushes ideas to solve problems which are really policy preferences based on (fringe) values. Yes, you can come up with an efficient way to solve a problem, but if I don't think it's a problem (or the solution is a bigger problem) I won't ever agree.
The science of economics already exists and should inform everything EA claims it's about. When I first encountered EA, I thought it would sound like economics (which I studied). When it didn't, I began to see the truth. Most of them aren't economists, and often don't seem to understand basic ideas like supply and demand or (especially!) gains from trade. They are making essentially economic arguments but ignore centuries of economic theory and research. Sure, lots of EA people are smart and experts in their fields, but they are not experts in the field that matters!
2. I get the vibe that EA would really, really like to be able to do things with other people's money. They're so virtuous, so smart, so altruistic that you can trust them to do what's right for all for the greater good. I'll emphasize "so smart." Read EA writing and tell me that it's intended for a general audience rather than to show how smart the writer is. There are some exceptions, like Scott Alexander and the host of this blog, but geeeeeeeez what a lot of IQ-based dick measuring at EA sites. Read the comments at Less Wrong. If I cared to give advice, I'd say, "If your goal is to convince enough people to change policy, you need to speak to the general public in a way that doesn't make you sound like a bunch of smug douchebags." Certain EA proponents can do this, and experts in many fields succeed in communicating clearly with a general audience. The fact that EA cannot seem to do this consistently indicates it's not interested in doing so. Fine, we need civil society and special interest groups, but if you are trying to change policy in a democracy it might be a good idea to be able to talk to voters. At the very least it's good practice in communication skills. I find that the most talented people can communicate clearly with anyone in plain English.
3. I do not accept that any solution is obvious. In practice, everything is a trade-off. EA is bad at this.
Example: You want to put in a big affordable housing project in a nice neighborhood, huh? How virtuous. What about the consequences for everyone else? Here's a news flash: the neighborhood is nice because there are no affordable housing projects. Put one in, people move away. Have done it. Would do again. I paid a lot to get away.
Why value affordable housing over the preferences of people who already live in a nice neighborhood (and have worked hard and paid taxes to do so?) There's a bias here. It's not self-evident and not everyone wins. If you want to advocate for a group, fine, but don't act like any opposition is illegitimate. In a democracy, voters do not have to justify their preferences. That's why it's a democracy and not something else.
That's a single example from a complicated problem with no solution that will satisfy everyone. If a problem hasn't been solved already, it's because it's not easy. I'm all for cutting red tape and firing everyone at the FDA, burning down their building and sowing the ground with salt (figuratively! The Horseshoe Crab is against violence against anyone at any time. Salt is fine, though, since I live in the ocean.) However, the FDA is terrible because of many decisions made by elected officials solving perceived problems. Solving all those problems caused the problem!
Be careful about what problems you solve. A lot of EA problems aren't problems, will solve themselves if left alone, or aren't something they, or anyone else, can solve. Not every investment is a good one.
4. The sad truth is that most of the societal problems we have in the US are not problems government or anyone else can solve for other people. The best thing for me to do for the world is to make sure I'm the best person I can be for the people I know personally. I am best equipped to understand them and their problems. I'm not that important, nor am I special. I may be smart, but so what? I may have money, but that doesn't mean I am better equipped to solve problems in fields in which I have no expert knowledge.
Feel free to dismiss all of this, but EA puts off people who by temperament and training should find it appealing. That's my critique.
Lastly, read Julian Simon. He should have had a larger influence than he did.
Ehhhhhh. You need to ask the first question.
Why does EA need to exist at all? What's it for?
1. What purpose does it serve? Charity has always existed. I don't need anyone, least of all these weirdos, to tell me how to give money away. EA is a political movement consisting of elites who attempt to convince other elites to adapt their preferred values and implement their policy preferences. It is not a popular movement and does not even try to be.
By definition altruism is a personal choice. "Effective" how? By what criteria? That's subjective!
EA is a way to push political causes under the guise of being scientific and rational. I've seen this racket before. At its best, it sounds like economics, but what's concerning is that it often pushes ideas to solve problems which are really policy preferences based on (fringe) values. Yes, you can come up with an efficient way to solve a problem, but if I don't think it's a problem (or the solution is a bigger problem) I won't ever agree.
The science of economics already exists and should inform everything EA claims it's about. When I first encountered EA, I thought it would sound like economics (which I studied). When it didn't, I began to see the truth. Most of them aren't economists, and often don't seem to understand basic ideas like supply and demand or (especially!) gains from trade. They are making essentially economic arguments but ignore centuries of economic theory and research. Sure, lots of EA people are smart and experts in their fields, but they are not experts in the field that matters!
2. I get the vibe that EA would really, really like to be able to do things with other people's money. They're so virtuous, so smart, so altruistic that you can trust them to do what's right for all for the greater good. I'll emphasize "so smart." Read EA writing and tell me that it's intended for a general audience rather than to show how smart the writer is. There are some exceptions, like Scott Alexander and the host of this blog, but geeeeeeeez what a lot of IQ-based dick measuring at EA sites. Read the comments at Less Wrong. If I cared to give advice, I'd say, "If your goal is to convince enough people to change policy, you need to speak to the general public in a way that doesn't make you sound like a bunch of smug douchebags." Certain EA proponents can do this, and experts in many fields succeed in communicating clearly with a general audience. The fact that EA cannot seem to do this consistently indicates it's not interested in doing so. Fine, we need civil society and special interest groups, but if you are trying to change policy in a democracy it might be a good idea to be able to talk to voters. At the very least it's good practice in communication skills. I find that the most talented people can communicate clearly with anyone in plain English.
3. I do not accept that any solution is obvious. In practice, everything is a trade-off. EA is bad at this.
Example: You want to put in a big affordable housing project in a nice neighborhood, huh? How virtuous. What about the consequences for everyone else? Here's a news flash: the neighborhood is nice because there are no affordable housing projects. Put one in, people move away. Have done it. Would do again. I paid a lot to get away.
Why value affordable housing over the preferences of people who already live in a nice neighborhood (and have worked hard and paid taxes to do so?) There's a bias here. It's not self-evident and not everyone wins. If you want to advocate for a group, fine, but don't act like any opposition is illegitimate. In a democracy, voters do not have to justify their preferences. That's why it's a democracy and not something else.
That's a single example from a complicated problem with no solution that will satisfy everyone. If a problem hasn't been solved already, it's because it's not easy. I'm all for cutting red tape and firing everyone at the FDA, burning down their building and sowing the ground with salt (figuratively! The Horseshoe Crab is against violence against anyone at any time. Salt is fine, though, since I live in the ocean.) However, the FDA is terrible because of many decisions made by elected officials solving perceived problems. Solving all those problems caused the problem!
Be careful about what problems you solve. A lot of EA problems aren't problems, will solve themselves if left alone, or aren't something they, or anyone else, can solve. Not every investment is a good one.
4. The sad truth is that most of the societal problems we have in the US are not problems government or anyone else can solve for other people. The best thing for me to do for the world is to make sure I'm the best person I can be for the people I know personally. I am best equipped to understand them and their problems. I'm not that important, nor am I special. I may be smart, but so what? I may have money, but that doesn't mean I am better equipped to solve problems in fields in which I have no expert knowledge.
Feel free to dismiss all of this, but EA puts off people who by temperament and training should find it appealing. That's my critique.
Lastly, read Julian Simon. He should have had a larger influence than he did.