Okay, if you think the underlying ideas are better realized under a different banner, where would you point? I'm not saying that EA invented the idea just that, for me, it's harder than I would like to point at institutions who are popularizing that concept.
Perhaps this just reflects my ignorance; I'd be happy if there's an obvious answer to the question.
Okay, if you think the underlying ideas are better realized under a different banner, where would you point? I'm not saying that EA invented the idea just that, for me, it's harder than I would like to point at institutions who are popularizing that concept.
Perhaps this just reflects my ignorance; I'd be happy if there's an obvious answer to the question.
I mean, utilitarianism has been around for a while, with various pluses and minuses. the EA movement really seems to maximize minuses and minimize pluses.
Has EA created some sort of real uptick in people donating kidneys? people were certainly donating organs before EA existed...
Thinking more about your comment about utilitarianism here's what I'd say.
Yes, EA, in general, seems like an offshoot of utilitarianism and, yes, even by the standard of evaluating charities EA isn't perfect. But I'm curious if there are any other utilitarian groups doing a better job.
For example, Give Directly was mentioned upthread. It doesn't claim that all charity should be replaced with direct cash grants but it does think people should ask the question, "is this other charitable program better or worse than just giving cash directly" and it wants to do programs at large enough scale that there's actual evidence to use to compare program X with cash grants.
Similarly, I wouldn't argue that GiveWell is perfect, or that people should only give money to GiveWell recommended charities, but I think it is a useful point of comparison to ask, "what should I look for to decide whether [Charity X] is better than just giving to GiveWell recommended groups."
"That might mean writing a recommendation like the one GiveWell offers for deworming, which reads quite weirdly if youтАЩre used to more typical charity recommendations. It more or less directly says 'weтАЩre very unsure if this works, but if it does, the benefits are sufficiently large that itтАЩs worth doing.'тАЭ
I got curious about your question about Kidney donations. It's hard to find historical data, what I did see was this, which doesn't prove anything either way ( https://unos.org/news/2022-organ-transplants-again-set-annual-records/ ). You could argue that EA contributed to the 2019 peak, but I doubt it was a major factor:
"A total of 6,466 people became living organ donors in 2022, slightly fewer than in 2021. Living organ donation has varied considerably over the last several years, reflecting various trends in transplant need and the circumstances where living donation is an option. The all-time record of 7,389 in 2019 was followed by a decrease to 5,726 in 2020, due to effects of the COVID-19 pandemic."
The FDB piece is pretty good. He of course ends by turning it into some sort of weird boast about how he's better at leftism than the other leftists because he got there first and also because he's bored or some such, but if I didn't already have an ax to grind with him that probably wouldn't bother me that much.
Perhaps that is just the difference in who we've been exposed to. In my own experience I've found the EA advocates much more sympathetic than libertarians. But if the people you've encountered have made you feel the opposite . . . I can see why you'd be critical of EA.
Okay, if you think the underlying ideas are better realized under a different banner, where would you point? I'm not saying that EA invented the idea just that, for me, it's harder than I would like to point at institutions who are popularizing that concept.
Perhaps this just reflects my ignorance; I'd be happy if there's an obvious answer to the question.
I mean, utilitarianism has been around for a while, with various pluses and minuses. the EA movement really seems to maximize minuses and minimize pluses.
Has EA created some sort of real uptick in people donating kidneys? people were certainly donating organs before EA existed...
Thinking more about your comment about utilitarianism here's what I'd say.
Yes, EA, in general, seems like an offshoot of utilitarianism and, yes, even by the standard of evaluating charities EA isn't perfect. But I'm curious if there are any other utilitarian groups doing a better job.
For example, Give Directly was mentioned upthread. It doesn't claim that all charity should be replaced with direct cash grants but it does think people should ask the question, "is this other charitable program better or worse than just giving cash directly" and it wants to do programs at large enough scale that there's actual evidence to use to compare program X with cash grants.
Similarly, I wouldn't argue that GiveWell is perfect, or that people should only give money to GiveWell recommended charities, but I think it is a useful point of comparison to ask, "what should I look for to decide whether [Charity X] is better than just giving to GiveWell recommended groups."
I think the linked Kate Manne piece is good, but I don't think that, by itself, should be a reason to not think seriously about what GiveWell is doing as a floor of sorts for evaluating charitable effectiveness. See, for example this article about the deworming controversy: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/7/19/23268786/deworming-givewell-effective-altruism-michael-hobbes
"That might mean writing a recommendation like the one GiveWell offers for deworming, which reads quite weirdly if youтАЩre used to more typical charity recommendations. It more or less directly says 'weтАЩre very unsure if this works, but if it does, the benefits are sufficiently large that itтАЩs worth doing.'тАЭ
I will also say that, while looking up the Dylan Matthews piece, I found FdB's response which, somewhat to my surprise, was reasonable and makes a good point: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/effective-altruism-has-a-novelty
I got curious about your question about Kidney donations. It's hard to find historical data, what I did see was this, which doesn't prove anything either way ( https://unos.org/news/2022-organ-transplants-again-set-annual-records/ ). You could argue that EA contributed to the 2019 peak, but I doubt it was a major factor:
"A total of 6,466 people became living organ donors in 2022, slightly fewer than in 2021. Living organ donation has varied considerably over the last several years, reflecting various trends in transplant need and the circumstances where living donation is an option. The all-time record of 7,389 in 2019 was followed by a decrease to 5,726 in 2020, due to effects of the COVID-19 pandemic."
The FDB piece is pretty good. He of course ends by turning it into some sort of weird boast about how he's better at leftism than the other leftists because he got there first and also because he's bored or some such, but if I didn't already have an ax to grind with him that probably wouldn't bother me that much.
My response to the piece was very similar.
Perhaps that is just the difference in who we've been exposed to. In my own experience I've found the EA advocates much more sympathetic than libertarians. But if the people you've encountered have made you feel the opposite . . . I can see why you'd be critical of EA.
Libertarians aren't synonymous with utilitarians, I don't think?
The most high profile EA advocates are SBF and Elon Musk, who I don't find very sympathetic, I'll admit!
Quite right; I was typing too quickly.