"But effective altruism doesn’t say that. If it did, that would be pretty weird, as no EAs do that. A few people give away all their wealth above around 30,000 dollars, but this is not expected of everyone, or followed by more than a few. Effective altruism is just about the idea that doing good effectively is really important, and it should be at least one important life project. It doesn’t require holding that this should be the only thing you do. EA orgs tend to recommend giving away 10%; while more is better, this is a reasonable baseline at which effective giving is a major part of what you do, but doesn’t dominate your life."
I basically agree with this and I think this undermines Matthews's point in the Vox article that spending money to rebuild Notre Dame was bad. (I really did not like that article.) We understand that no one should be expected to give away literally everything they they can and wear a hair shirt. Therefore, people can be forgiven for spending a certain amount on luxury and non-survival pursuits they find meaningful. Therefore, money you spend on something you find meaningful, like rebuilding Notre Dame, does not come at the expense of people dying - it was never going to end up there in the first place.
Good article. Another point to mention : Not only we should help animals first over humans, because animal charities are much more effective, but we very likely shouldn't give to human charities at all. The reason is simply that most humans aren't vegan, so saving the average human contributes to perpetuating the suffering and death of thousands of non-human animals.
In contrast, one could argue that humans are the best hope for animals from a longtermist perspective. We’re the only ones smart enough to one day end wild animal suffering in some sci-fi scenario.
Giving to help humans, even poor humans, can help human development (and therefore have the butterfly effect of leading to better human prosperity to end animal suffering).
Yeah I realize that it’s speculative, and I don’t find what you’re saying absurd, but it would also be speculative to think that shorttermist animal charities would end future long term animal suffering.
I also do agree with the pro-human longtermist argument made by SolarxPvP, espeically since the longer technological civilisation will remain, the less wild animals there likely will be (though some uncertainties remain).
Hello BB, Do you have any advice on how to select your readings? Given the vast amount of books and papers available on various subjects, I often feel overwhelmed and concerned that I might miss valuable resources. I asked you about this on Goodreads, but it seems you didn't see my comment.
Yeah, didn't see sorry. I recommend just reading about what you're interested in, and you'll generally get more total reading done. I don't follow any sort of detailed reading regiment. Also try to read summaries and overviews.
You wrote that “There are two different components of effective altruism. The first is that we should strive to make the world a better place effectively.” I cannot figure out what the second component is? Even reading all of Scott’s articles, I am not sure what the second component you are thinking of is?
I work in the community development finance field which has significant measurable impacts. It's fulfilling and enjoyable. But I find it's my direct giving (not only of money but of time and energy) in my personal life that seems to have more impact. I highly recommend direct-giving to people or people who help people. I've been doing it regularly for years now. More recently, here on Substack I've been leveraging paid subs to encourage people to join me. We raised $350 and disburses $10 each to 35 grassroots changemakers in Africa that I interviewed earlier this summer. Not saying it's the only way. But it's been a really rewarding way to see how far my dollars can go to help people especially people who are key Changemakers in their communities. See my "How Far Does $10 Go" series on my RainMakers and ChangeMakers publication. Hoping readers here will be inspired to move beyound philosophy and abstractions and consider trying some action. Action usually leads to more action. And if you keep following the thread of action you get better at making decisions. The more I give it a go, the more I find really meaningful and impactful ways to - if not change the world - to change someone else's world.
I'm thinking of starting a new movement: Ineffective Altruism. The goal is to find the LEAST effective charities. They have to do some good (or they would not be a charity), but the good has to be infinitesimal for it to be least effective, My current recommended IA charity is a fund that will hire servants to put away toys for very wealthy children. But I'm open to other nominees. : )
On the human / animal issue, economics is premised on the idea that there is always some tradeoff between goods at the margin. (That is, no real lexicographical preferences.) So providing X benefit to animals has the same utility to you as providing Y benefit to humans, for some large value of X and small value of Y. The issue is just what are those Xs and Ys, in real practical terms. As I understand it, quantifying some of this is one of EA's huge projects, as well as BB's. The large amount of cheaply preventable huge animal suffering means there is a huge X.
yes we absolutely have higher duties to those closer to us. our moral obligation to someone we see who truly needs our seat on a train is greater than the obligation to an unknown and unseen dying child. and yes our duties to people absolutely do change "over time" if our relationship to them changes. i have more moral duty to my wife now than i did to her when i did not know her. obviously. to not see this is moral blindness.
the difference between humans and lower animals is more than an order of magnitude. our level of consciousness and fully animated and storied view of past, present and future as well as our conception and experience of pleasure and suffering is likely as close to a rabbit as is the understanding of the concepts in this comment. night and day.
//our moral obligation to someone we see who truly needs our seat on a train is greater than the obligation to an unknown and unseen dying child.//
This seems cclearly wrong.
//the difference between humans and lower animals is more than an order of magnitude. our level of consciousness and fully animated and storied view of past, present and future as well as our conception and experience of pleasure and suffering is likely as close to a rabbit as is the understanding of the concepts in this comment. //
the reasons for having greater moral obligation to those closer to us (either physically in our presence, or nearer to our heart and mind, or both) is that the healthy mind and heart tells us that we ought to. we naturally feel it more strongly, and it is right (normal and healthy, if you must) that we do. it is why we have a greater moral obligation to our wife and children than to strangers. it is why we have greater moral obligation to other humans (even if infant or retarded) than to shrimp - because they are humans, and thereby nearer to us. this is axiomatic and to not see is to have lost your humanity. the relationship between moral obligation and proximity (physically and/or in our hearts) is probably similar to gravity - the force weakens inversely with the square of the distance. (this is purely a metaphor, of course) i will grant you that the "distance" between us and a starving child in yemen has closed considerably with technology. and likewise our obligation. it also explains why it is morally just and right that one persons moral intuitions (their heart) may compel them to donate to a dog shelter (because they love dogs) and another to a haitian charity (because they love children) and each should listen to their heart. i would not go so far as to say your own moral intuitions to give to that which you think is the most "efficient" is an all bad moral intuition, but if you raise this to an unum neccesarium it becomes a gross perversion and ends in moral absurdity. i will say without hesitation that charity to shrimp is a manifestation of this absurdity. it is an unnatural, not a natural, extension of the moral principle.
Small nitpick, but my understanding is that Dambisa Moyo, in particular, has opposed the free distribution of bednets, on grounds that they might be a temporary solution that outcompetes local manufacturers (or at least, that’s an example in her book Dead Aid). I think she’s wrong, to be clear, and – as you note – Easterly and others have generally advocated aid programs that include the distribution of vaccines, preventative medication, etc. (in fact, Deaton has explicitly praised bednet distribution programs).
Thanks for the comprehensive list !
"But effective altruism doesn’t say that. If it did, that would be pretty weird, as no EAs do that. A few people give away all their wealth above around 30,000 dollars, but this is not expected of everyone, or followed by more than a few. Effective altruism is just about the idea that doing good effectively is really important, and it should be at least one important life project. It doesn’t require holding that this should be the only thing you do. EA orgs tend to recommend giving away 10%; while more is better, this is a reasonable baseline at which effective giving is a major part of what you do, but doesn’t dominate your life."
I basically agree with this and I think this undermines Matthews's point in the Vox article that spending money to rebuild Notre Dame was bad. (I really did not like that article.) We understand that no one should be expected to give away literally everything they they can and wear a hair shirt. Therefore, people can be forgiven for spending a certain amount on luxury and non-survival pursuits they find meaningful. Therefore, money you spend on something you find meaningful, like rebuilding Notre Dame, does not come at the expense of people dying - it was never going to end up there in the first place.
Good article. Another point to mention : Not only we should help animals first over humans, because animal charities are much more effective, but we very likely shouldn't give to human charities at all. The reason is simply that most humans aren't vegan, so saving the average human contributes to perpetuating the suffering and death of thousands of non-human animals.
More details about this in this excellent article that I wrote : https://benjamintettu.substack.com/p/a-critique-of-effective-altruism
In contrast, one could argue that humans are the best hope for animals from a longtermist perspective. We’re the only ones smart enough to one day end wild animal suffering in some sci-fi scenario.
Giving to help humans, even poor humans, can help human development (and therefore have the butterfly effect of leading to better human prosperity to end animal suffering).
I am sympathetic to this idea, though I find it a little bit too speculative to justify what's at stake
Yeah I realize that it’s speculative, and I don’t find what you’re saying absurd, but it would also be speculative to think that shorttermist animal charities would end future long term animal suffering.
Reduction in wild animal populations should be considered too : https://reducing-suffering.org/malaria-foundation-reduce-invertebrate-suffering/
I also do agree with the pro-human longtermist argument made by SolarxPvP, espeically since the longer technological civilisation will remain, the less wild animals there likely will be (though some uncertainties remain).
Hello BB, Do you have any advice on how to select your readings? Given the vast amount of books and papers available on various subjects, I often feel overwhelmed and concerned that I might miss valuable resources. I asked you about this on Goodreads, but it seems you didn't see my comment.
Yeah, didn't see sorry. I recommend just reading about what you're interested in, and you'll generally get more total reading done. I don't follow any sort of detailed reading regiment. Also try to read summaries and overviews.
Thanks.
You wrote that “There are two different components of effective altruism. The first is that we should strive to make the world a better place effectively.” I cannot figure out what the second component is? Even reading all of Scott’s articles, I am not sure what the second component you are thinking of is?
Fixe
I work in the community development finance field which has significant measurable impacts. It's fulfilling and enjoyable. But I find it's my direct giving (not only of money but of time and energy) in my personal life that seems to have more impact. I highly recommend direct-giving to people or people who help people. I've been doing it regularly for years now. More recently, here on Substack I've been leveraging paid subs to encourage people to join me. We raised $350 and disburses $10 each to 35 grassroots changemakers in Africa that I interviewed earlier this summer. Not saying it's the only way. But it's been a really rewarding way to see how far my dollars can go to help people especially people who are key Changemakers in their communities. See my "How Far Does $10 Go" series on my RainMakers and ChangeMakers publication. Hoping readers here will be inspired to move beyound philosophy and abstractions and consider trying some action. Action usually leads to more action. And if you keep following the thread of action you get better at making decisions. The more I give it a go, the more I find really meaningful and impactful ways to - if not change the world - to change someone else's world.
I'm thinking of starting a new movement: Ineffective Altruism. The goal is to find the LEAST effective charities. They have to do some good (or they would not be a charity), but the good has to be infinitesimal for it to be least effective, My current recommended IA charity is a fund that will hire servants to put away toys for very wealthy children. But I'm open to other nominees. : )
On the human / animal issue, economics is premised on the idea that there is always some tradeoff between goods at the margin. (That is, no real lexicographical preferences.) So providing X benefit to animals has the same utility to you as providing Y benefit to humans, for some large value of X and small value of Y. The issue is just what are those Xs and Ys, in real practical terms. As I understand it, quantifying some of this is one of EA's huge projects, as well as BB's. The large amount of cheaply preventable huge animal suffering means there is a huge X.
yes we absolutely have higher duties to those closer to us. our moral obligation to someone we see who truly needs our seat on a train is greater than the obligation to an unknown and unseen dying child. and yes our duties to people absolutely do change "over time" if our relationship to them changes. i have more moral duty to my wife now than i did to her when i did not know her. obviously. to not see this is moral blindness.
the difference between humans and lower animals is more than an order of magnitude. our level of consciousness and fully animated and storied view of past, present and future as well as our conception and experience of pleasure and suffering is likely as close to a rabbit as is the understanding of the concepts in this comment. night and day.
//our moral obligation to someone we see who truly needs our seat on a train is greater than the obligation to an unknown and unseen dying child.//
This seems cclearly wrong.
//the difference between humans and lower animals is more than an order of magnitude. our level of consciousness and fully animated and storied view of past, present and future as well as our conception and experience of pleasure and suffering is likely as close to a rabbit as is the understanding of the concepts in this comment. //
What about a baby or a mentally disabled people.
the reasons for having greater moral obligation to those closer to us (either physically in our presence, or nearer to our heart and mind, or both) is that the healthy mind and heart tells us that we ought to. we naturally feel it more strongly, and it is right (normal and healthy, if you must) that we do. it is why we have a greater moral obligation to our wife and children than to strangers. it is why we have greater moral obligation to other humans (even if infant or retarded) than to shrimp - because they are humans, and thereby nearer to us. this is axiomatic and to not see is to have lost your humanity. the relationship between moral obligation and proximity (physically and/or in our hearts) is probably similar to gravity - the force weakens inversely with the square of the distance. (this is purely a metaphor, of course) i will grant you that the "distance" between us and a starving child in yemen has closed considerably with technology. and likewise our obligation. it also explains why it is morally just and right that one persons moral intuitions (their heart) may compel them to donate to a dog shelter (because they love dogs) and another to a haitian charity (because they love children) and each should listen to their heart. i would not go so far as to say your own moral intuitions to give to that which you think is the most "efficient" is an all bad moral intuition, but if you raise this to an unum neccesarium it becomes a gross perversion and ends in moral absurdity. i will say without hesitation that charity to shrimp is a manifestation of this absurdity. it is an unnatural, not a natural, extension of the moral principle.
Small nitpick, but my understanding is that Dambisa Moyo, in particular, has opposed the free distribution of bednets, on grounds that they might be a temporary solution that outcompetes local manufacturers (or at least, that’s an example in her book Dead Aid). I think she’s wrong, to be clear, and – as you note – Easterly and others have generally advocated aid programs that include the distribution of vaccines, preventative medication, etc. (in fact, Deaton has explicitly praised bednet distribution programs).
Separately, on systemic change, I’d guess carefully researched growth interventions would be more cost-effective than GiveWell top charities (see this excellent report by Dercon for OpenPhil: https://www.openphilanthropy.org/wp-content/uploads/Development-through-Economic-Growth_report.pdf).