> This claim is just bizarre. Effective altruism devotes a very small part of its resources to ea promotion.
This is incorrect. As the article specifically states, certain EA organizations that you endorse have devoted (as their topmost priorities) self-referential work related to EA.
> If we want to do the most good, one way to do so is to make there be more ea’s.
Assuming that EA is good is certainly true, but there is an arrogance to be had in a movement who believes that the literal best possible use of resources is promoting itself.
> it’s good to focus on ea promotion, the same way it’s good for a chess club to promote itself sometimes, rather than stick to playing chess.
This is incorrect, even if promoting EA is in fact "good". It is certainly not good for the same reason that a chess club promoting itself is good. A chess club's primary goal is interpersonal competition and community relationships, which by their own terms require people to join as people naturally leave. EA's purported goal, on the other hand, is to take the best actions.
> Consider two states of affairs.
No.
> World 2 seems clearly better if we care about bettering the world, rather than maintaining strange moral purity.
Although ethics may be a foreign concept to some ************, most people do in fact believe in them. Regardless, this isn't an actual argument, the point being made in the post isn't that moral purity is "more" important then anything EA does. Indeed the part you quote says ***exactly*** that, the point is rather that the goals and marketing of EA as Altruism is simply false.
> Brian Berkeley points out that the institutional critique doesn’t apply [...] it just often finds it’s less effective. However, in cases where it’s more effective, EA does systemic reform.
Have you considered that the Author of this Article is saying that EA's research is simply wrong as a matter of fact? I have noticed that many EA's simply assert that their decision-making models simply "don't do bad things", which is about as effective as asserting that the Federal Government can do no wrong because its research budget is larger.
> McDonalds, Dunkin’ Donuts, General Mills, Costco, Sodexo and many more to adopt cage-free egg policies.
By adopting these policies they sapped momentum away from systemic movements that would have been able to remove factory farming entirely.
The other two reforms you mentioned are great though.
> denounced the evils of capitalism in as loud and shrill voices as they could muster
If all the EA's on the planet denounced children dying of Africa in their loudest voices, nothing much would change either. You can't say that EA is great because of monetary donations, and then mega-strawman other possible uses of that money as mere "shrill voices". If every EA gave 10% of their income to Socialist movements, things would probably improve massively.
> As Alexander argues, if everyone donated 10% to effective charities it would end world poverty cure major diseases and start a major cultural and scientific renaissance but if everyone become devoted to systemic change we would probably have a civil war.
This compares apples and oranges. You presume that everyone donates 10% to *effective* charities, but then assume that we don't devote ourselves to *effective* systemic change. For example, say 50% of people donated to "effective charities", and the other 50% donated to the "Elon Musk make-AGI-ASAP-for-profit" group, things would go very bad very quickly.
> There are already issues that do a bunch of research into politics such as the brookings institution. If ea were to become more political it would likely become a brookings institute or cato institute esque group.
Ok. And?
You say a lot more stuff but I think I can generally answer it by asserting with no argumentation that utilitarianism is evil.
> This claim is just bizarre. Effective altruism devotes a very small part of its resources to ea promotion.
This is incorrect. As the article specifically states, certain EA organizations that you endorse have devoted (as their topmost priorities) self-referential work related to EA.
> If we want to do the most good, one way to do so is to make there be more ea’s.
Assuming that EA is good is certainly true, but there is an arrogance to be had in a movement who believes that the literal best possible use of resources is promoting itself.
> it’s good to focus on ea promotion, the same way it’s good for a chess club to promote itself sometimes, rather than stick to playing chess.
This is incorrect, even if promoting EA is in fact "good". It is certainly not good for the same reason that a chess club promoting itself is good. A chess club's primary goal is interpersonal competition and community relationships, which by their own terms require people to join as people naturally leave. EA's purported goal, on the other hand, is to take the best actions.
> Consider two states of affairs.
No.
> World 2 seems clearly better if we care about bettering the world, rather than maintaining strange moral purity.
Although ethics may be a foreign concept to some ************, most people do in fact believe in them. Regardless, this isn't an actual argument, the point being made in the post isn't that moral purity is "more" important then anything EA does. Indeed the part you quote says ***exactly*** that, the point is rather that the goals and marketing of EA as Altruism is simply false.
> Brian Berkeley points out that the institutional critique doesn’t apply [...] it just often finds it’s less effective. However, in cases where it’s more effective, EA does systemic reform.
Have you considered that the Author of this Article is saying that EA's research is simply wrong as a matter of fact? I have noticed that many EA's simply assert that their decision-making models simply "don't do bad things", which is about as effective as asserting that the Federal Government can do no wrong because its research budget is larger.
> McDonalds, Dunkin’ Donuts, General Mills, Costco, Sodexo and many more to adopt cage-free egg policies.
By adopting these policies they sapped momentum away from systemic movements that would have been able to remove factory farming entirely.
The other two reforms you mentioned are great though.
> denounced the evils of capitalism in as loud and shrill voices as they could muster
If all the EA's on the planet denounced children dying of Africa in their loudest voices, nothing much would change either. You can't say that EA is great because of monetary donations, and then mega-strawman other possible uses of that money as mere "shrill voices". If every EA gave 10% of their income to Socialist movements, things would probably improve massively.
> As Alexander argues, if everyone donated 10% to effective charities it would end world poverty cure major diseases and start a major cultural and scientific renaissance but if everyone become devoted to systemic change we would probably have a civil war.
This compares apples and oranges. You presume that everyone donates 10% to *effective* charities, but then assume that we don't devote ourselves to *effective* systemic change. For example, say 50% of people donated to "effective charities", and the other 50% donated to the "Elon Musk make-AGI-ASAP-for-profit" group, things would go very bad very quickly.
> There are already issues that do a bunch of research into politics such as the brookings institution. If ea were to become more political it would likely become a brookings institute or cato institute esque group.
Ok. And?
You say a lot more stuff but I think I can generally answer it by asserting with no argumentation that utilitarianism is evil.