What are your views on effective altruism?
"Effective altruism is about prioritising our efforts when doing good, so we can help others as much as we can."
The two most common types I would say is
1) Working in a 'benefit the world' type of organisation - non-profits, AI research, nanotechnology, climate research etc etc
2) Earn to give - Give a portion (normally 10-20%) of income to charity/non-profits
Another not so common type is the fake-woke altruism - SBF is a prime example. Part of the community for the "prestige" and feel of "helping the world" rather than the actual want to do good. Basically, very good PR.
I'm personally part of the community, but outside of reading resources, I am not contributing to the course in anyway yet.
What are your view on effective altruism?
I think the devil is in scrupulosity. Charity work in general is great, and while there are always more efficient ways to do things, don't let perfect be the enemy of good. In your case OP, now that you've read about effective altruism, what are you driven to do?
Did someone turn on the Catholic gang search light Pierogi Equities ? OP, I would just add on that giving your actual time instead of sending a dollar to SGK where only seven cents of that dollar actually makes it to the actual recipient is a more altruistic pursuit. Or working for some organization that purports they're doing it "for the public good". You want to be altruistic? Get hands on with your local Big Brothers / Big Sisters chapter (not like that you dirtbags), buying groceries to give to your local food bank, fostering dogs and cats or whatever else for your local shelter, giving toys to Toys for Tots, etc. Things where you know no scumbag is going to skim and you don't give them the option.
Edit: it sounds corny but our firm sponsors giving time to a food kitchen for instance (they want us to wear the company logo of course). Helping out with a local BSA/GSA troop. Volunteering to ref local rec league intramural sports. Then just small day to day things like keeping a snack castle on your desk so even if you don't give a crap about what's there, it's all for the team. Or just taking a teammember who feels down and out for a round and finger food after work at happy hour to show some empathy. Again, giving the time. Not the money (ok, there's some money).
Catholicism and charity go hand in hand!
Agree on your approach. An old firm of mine did something similar where you'd get an extra day off to volunteer at a charity and then also matched your donation to whatever org you wanted.
On the topic of effective altruism though, one thing I think is a net positive is volunteering as a citizenship naturalization helper, helping people study for the USCIS exam to become US citizens. People complain so much about illegal immigration, but helping people come in the right way I think is a net positive since they are then officially paying taxes and have more of a stake in being Americans (or citizens of whatever country if you do it elsewhere). Somewhere like Japan might really need that soon.
That it's a front for the charlatans who preach it. If you need to make announcements and bribe media to write puff stories about how magnanimous you are to all the little people, you're a fraud.
I’ve previously written two threads on Effective Altruism (titled Effective Altruism and Effective Altruism Revisited, which I wrote in the wake of SBF). I think the advice of “just work for a local charity” rings hollow when you consider a few things.
1. Most of us are Americans, a few are Europeans. This makes us wildly wealthy compared to the world’s people. So many people are illiterate. So many people don’t have potable drinking water. Internet? Access to life-saving medicines and medical care? Freedom from malaria and parasites? Access to irrigation and fertilizer? Safe cooking stoves which don’t poison the whole house? Homes which can withstand natural disasters. The overwhelming evidence points to the conclusion that the rest of the world is far less fortunate than America, and that American dollars have higher purchasing power parity and impact to bring power to bear on improving these things.
2. It’s intellectually lazy to say “I volunteer my time in kind because American charities waste 93% of my money.” First of all, not all charities do, and CharitiesNavigator and Effective Altruism proponents have already identified charities which do better in these things. Second of all, this completely ignores purchasing power parity, whereby your dollar could potentially go orders of magnitude farther in a target country even if wasted. Third, and this is a repeat, it ignores the overwhelming wealth of the US compared to others.
3. A strong case can be made that people who are wealthy should focus on making more money and giving it than spending time doing volunteer work which could otherwise be hired out for $15 an hour to ladle food at a soup kitchen (which is a perfectly noble full-time vocation if one held it, but this is a matter of division of labor and comparative advantage which is the very foundation of the US’ increased standards of living and welfare). It used to be that 99% of people had to work on 1 task and 1 task alone: getting food. Now 99% of people work on things other than food so that the 1% in agriculture might feed the world. To say “I, the investment banker, need to go to the soup kitchen and deliver in-kind services” spits in the face of the source of all of these advances in welfare. The welfare came, not from 99% of people always working on food and nothing else, but using comparative advantage to advance society as a whole using their own talents (not just in agriculture).
4. I see people who will spend so much money on flying volunteers for a weekend to do construction work that local people in the target community could do much cheaper. This is not the best model.
Agree with a lot and disagree with some of this:
1. This paragraph while I agree is also one of the problems with effective altruism. Sure, we can send money to malaria prevention and save tons of people compared to how much money is required to get one schizophrenic drug addict off the street. But taken to it's logical conclusion, we should send all of our money to malaria prevention and zero to the local homeless guy. In my opinion, it is good to be giving to a diversity of causes instead of necessarily the most critical.
Also, I think EA ignores other important charity. For example, giving to the arts or your local college. Again, better to save lives than not but at the same time, do you want to live in a world without museums and good colleges? Or one cause which I give to is my local church, from a purely materialistic point of view, people could see that as a waste of money, but I see it as building community and helping to feed a spiritually starved world.
2. Agree. This is lazy. There are plenty of charities that are using money efficiently. You just gotta roll up your sleeves and do some basic research.
3. Agree. The only reason that you should be volunteering at a soup kitchen as banker is to evaluate whether the charity is worth giving money to. See #2.
4. Agree and disagree. I used to share this view. On the surface, it's a complete waste of money, but here's the real question. Is this designed to help the poor people or the rich people? In my opinion, it's the latter. If the experience of seeing poverty in the third world forever changes the perception of one person in the first world, that could mean a ton of money given to charity over a lifetime. It could literally change their life and perspective on the world. It's sort of the same thing related to churches which I mentioned in #1. On the surface, donating to a church seems like a waste of money. If a churches changes someone's heart (as has been the case with mine) and that person becomes a charitable individual for the rest of their life giving to social causes, was it really a waste of money or the best use of money? I think these sorts of things EA has a very tough time of evaluating.
Last side note. A lot of this also has deeper problems. You can help with malaria prevention but you can't necessarily change the corrupt government under which those people live that limits economic progress. So even some of those causes you could argue are throwing money into a pit or putting a bandaid on a wound until the underlying problem is solved. Get a person off the street in the U.S. and they can build a productive life. Feed someone in a third world country and give them shelter, they still live in a place with little to no economic opportunity.
I get the sense that we probably mostly agree here. My primary purpose was countering the A2D position above which I see as suboptimal and taking the easy way out by not recognizing the dire plight of the world’s poor. 5 topics with you.
1. The Slippery Slope: in the same way that saying “work at a soup kitchen” is not the same as “work all the time in a soup kitchen,” my saying “give money to help the world’s poor” is not the same as “give all your money to help the world’s poor.” My proposition is not that one need give all, but that giving some effectively is better than service here, ceteris paribus.
2. Culture: supporting cultural institutions is part of a balanced breakfast, and is important in ensuring that America is run in a prosperous way that allows Effective Altruism. Being a complete Spartan about culture and causing the deterioration of America culturally is counter to the aims of effective altruism. It’s part of a balanced breakfast.
3. What I call “charitable solipsism”: we must balance the interests of giving wealthy people experiences which encourage them to willingly do more good on one hand with the other hand being poverty pornography and poverty tourism which caters to the American elite (of which we are all part) to the exclusion of helping the world’s poor in meaningful and effective ways. Moral people should be able to understand the necessity without always going first-hand to see it. I don’t have to go on a jet to have global compassion. Your point is well-taken, but must be balanced.
4. Religion: I’m a very religious person, and because of my religious beliefs, I believe that some ways lead to everlasting punishment and others everlasting reward. If this premise is believed, it naturally impacts the effectiveness calculus overwhelmingly in the favor of religion, even over malaria. “Eternal torment?” What could be worse? For those who do not accept similar premises, what I have laid out is better.
5. Corruption: this is a question I won’t fully answer, but let’s lay it out like this: “is it better that millions should survive childhood disease and live under what we would call tyranny, or that they should die in childhood?” I can see people sincerely arguing either side, although I do think the more that human welfare is promoted, the more likely it is that they will be able to extricate themselves from such tyranny. This is perhaps a Panglossian view, but it is mine.
Since the whole FTX mess, I've heard SBF mentioned a few times noting that he's not really a part of effective altruism. I completely disagree. In fact, he is essential to evaluating effective altrumism.
So, SBF ended up being a complete hypocrite. And what's his punishment for that? Nothing. And that's my problem with effective altruism. You're setting your own bar. Give to charity or don't give to charity and you're in the same place. It ultimately doesn't matter if you fail or succeed in your goal.
Personally, I'm Catholic and tithe 10% of my after tax income. If I am a hypocrite like SBF, my eternal soul is at risk and I am committing a wrong against God's love for us. Tithing for me is not just a nice thing to do - it is in my view an obligation which I must fulfill.
What does the church do with your money?
Depends on what aspect I'm giving to. For example, last year, I gave to three different areas of the church. The first is just for the maintenance and upkeep of my local parish (i.e. making sure the lights stay on and we can afford a new air conditioning unit. We're a very non-fancy parish - money isn't going to anything over the top), also gave to the fund for priests in training, and lastly gave to an order that manages orphanages. In all three cases, I know the people involved so I feel pretty good that my money is being spent well.
I generally agree with what you’re saying but I don’t agree with your theology that there are any obligations to give (though tithing is a good thing).
“The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” 2 Corinthians 9:6-7
I’d argue that there are many very wealthy people for who giving only 10% is an act of hatred toward God, and it’s certainly not worshipful giving.
Agree that it has to come from a good place. I don't consider the tithe as some sort of burden and am glad to do it.
I think what you're describing would be a very very rare case. Someone who is willing to give 10% of their income but doesn't really care and doesn't really want to give.
Also, I think that the term obligation is a bit problematic. I'd rather say that "I can't not give". When I see people in need and I see that I have the means to help, my heart can't help but to give. That's sort of an obligation but sort of not I suppose.
If you start getting deeper and deeper into the faith, I think that you would start feeling that you absolutely NEED to give and it's not a choice anymore but that's because it's coming from a good place rather than compulsion. If one doesn't feel like they need to do anything, I would really question the depth of their faith. That's an even rarer case in my opinion, someone who loves Jesus with all his heart but won't give a penny to help someone.
It's an interesting question. I do believe effective altruism in my industry (healthcare) has benefited those interesting in joining the industry / creating a career in it. People forming startups and organizations questioning the system and it's complexities has become very common especially in the past 3-4 years. I follow a handful of clinician-executives on LinkedIn to hear their perspectives in posts and some of them have grown quite famous amongst the healthcare community as thought leaders (know that one of these executives is a client for a prominent healthcare IB group that I'm familiar with). A lot of these leaders probably make a very good living in their positions and their place of power (get hired for speeches / talks etc) within the industry.
I do follow someone whose made essentially a "Litquidity" type of following for his healthcare company (provides a lot of news, helps people get jobs, and shitpost memes etc). He's not anonymous and has an incredible list of contacts he's made by just being 'brutally honest' about how he feels about the industry and I've seen him call out bad actors publicly on LinkedIn.
Being able to provide effective altruism while achieving a lifestyle where you can control your own destiny as an entrepreneur sounds super appealing but very tough to do well.
At it's core, it is a great concept.
In it's execution it is often times used a cover for wanton criminality. It is often an excuse used by sciopaths to excuse their criminal behavior, because you see, they are the superior intelects in the room who know better than everyone else how resources should be allocated. It effectively is a command economy theory. Don't mind me stealing from everyone buecause my friends and I know better than you.
What is the purpose when you can just try to be a good person on your own without conforming to a special title?
I believe in doing works of mercy.
I'm not a Catholic, but the more I've studied Catholicism the more I realize how similar Catholics are to conservative evangelical Christians (as I am). I agree with this totally.
Glad to hear it. I think for the longest time there was lot of propaganda separating evagelicals from Catholics. Thanks to the internet, it's easier for people to see that we're one big family. I'm hearing sentiments like yours more and more which was almost never the case in my experience back in the 90s or early 2000s.
Maybe I don't know enough about it, but it seems to be like a rehash of the kind of "Gospel of Wealth" type giving that was in vogue at the tail end of the Gilded Age. Not that there is anything wrong with giving away a lot of money... but as PrivateTechquity alludes to, it's not a panacea to excuse unethical or even criminal behavior to accumulate the wealth in the first place.
Look at the people who seem into effective altruism. They seem to be mostly charlatans who are high on their own narrative. Even if Sam Bankman-Fried (for example) wasn't an actual criminal, he still was running a company that was little more than a pump and dump scam in the first place. Yeah, if you make billions of dollars and give it all away, kudos to you... but not so much if you defrauded tens of thousands of people out of their money to accumulate it! All of which ignores the fact that SBF's idea of "charity" seemed to be "political donations."
Yeah agree. Accumulating money through unethical ways and then giving to charity does not make it ok.
I don’t believe true altruism exists. If you benefit in anyway such as feeling good about yourself then you’re not doing it altruistically
bingo
That is a pretty grim, nihilistic way of looking at the world. Aside from giving us a negative peek into your own ethical system, it also seems flat out wrong to me. Altruism means doing something without the expectation of a reward; if you don't know you're going to feel good about performing an act of caring for someone, then the act is altruistic. What if you volunteer at a soup kitchen, and you wake up one morning hungover and decide to go because you told yourself you would, and you're miserable the whole time?
Sounds like most peoples’ jobs
The core concepts I think are very compelling, namely:
1. You should put your charitable donations to work where they can make the biggest quantified impact. This tends to be disease prevention in Africa because you can save people’s lives for a few thousand dollars by giving them malaria nets/medicine, providing vitamin A supplements, etc (check givewell.org)
2. As wealthy westerners, you should recognize that we are very lucky by nature of being born where we are, and consider donating a higher % than you might initially consider.
where the “effective altruism” movement is led astray is they have been essentially captured and turned into a cult by the AI risk movement led by Eliezer Yudkowsky. This is essentially a Bay Area millenarian cult that believes there is a high risk of imminent apocalypse by AI that becomes super intelligent and kills all humans. The advocates of this theory then argue this risk is so big you should donate all your money to them to do research on how to prevent it. This is what SBF was doing.
personally I agree we should donate to charities that do more good - so I put my money into malaria treatments in Africa where $4k can save a human life. I also am from a poor family and want to build up my wealth, so rather than doing 10% of all my earnings as they recommend, I simply give 5% of my annual bonus every year to this.
I don't disagree, though I would expand the thinking a bit. We are so focused on charity that we often forget that capital investment in a free market is the absolute best path toward prosperity for poor people in poor countries. Bono has mentioned this numerous times now that charity is just not all that valuable compared to business enterprise in solving problems for the poor. Your $4,000 might have a more measurable direct impact on specific individuals in Africa very quickly, but a lot of people buying, say, stock in African-based companies, in the long run, will ultimately be a better solution for Africa. We see this same "tyranny of the urgent" in things like affordable housing, where politicians want easy short-term solutions to housing unaffordability, so they invest in affordable housing while kicking the can down the road on actual solutions, such as letting private homebuilders build new supply to meet demand.
So, that's what I'd say. Charity to poor countries can be a nice short-term help to individuals, but may be less productive over a long period of time than simply buying stock in an African company.
In theory. Until you realize that most of those companies are mostly just grift engines for well connected individuals to rob their countries blind. So by investing in these companies you are not only directly supporting the grift, you are actively rewarding it as well. I do agree that creating economic drivers is the best option, but the issue is that starts at cutting these NGO grifts out at the knees to prevent large dumps of market distorting "donations" to kill local economies. The charity work and NGOs can be reserved for things will drilling wells, corruption management, etc. Things that local economies can not manage to accomplish on its own. Will this cause short term misery and even death? Yes, but it will allow a foundation to be laid that will create opportunity for growth in the future that will actually lift all boats.
Effective altruism is really about making the most of your efforts, time, and resources to help others. So, as you rightly pointed out, the two most common ways to help the world are to work for organizations that benefit the world and to earn money to further charitable giving.
However, it is important to remember that helping should not be done for the purpose of gaining prestige or feeling good about doing good. As you rightly pointed out, false altruism can be an obstacle to effective assistance, as in this case the main goal may not be to help, but to gain benefits or improve social status.
y'all need to go hang with some women fucking hell
Eos consequatur maxime totam officia unde. Est ea porro exercitationem consequatur. Sint numquam reiciendis facere enim.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Sint quisquam doloribus molestias aut est eligendi. Sunt sunt et consequatur. Eum culpa nostrum quia est nihil. Commodi iusto ut reprehenderit. Nihil iusto magnam animi occaecati eaque corrupti earum. Dolores quisquam tenetur voluptatem voluptatem minus quam tenetur.
Tempore eaque qui quam et qui sit fugiat. Corporis voluptatum eius ex numquam et. Placeat ex sint atque. Ipsum ducimus ea et rerum est.
Repellendus debitis impedit est ipsa consequuntur impedit. Ea et ex omnis saepe soluta dolor est ad.
Et reiciendis libero est repellat. Neque et voluptatem tenetur ipsum ut cupiditate quae provident. Maxime aperiam ut iure autem ut est. Corporis est hic ut repellendus adipisci rerum delectus.