Why would a movement which started as nerds buying mosquito nets to stop malaria be "a bunch [of] post hoc justifications for bad behaviour"? You say this like it's an established fact or at least a common argument, yet I've never heard it before.
In the past, the community made the mistake of becoming too closely associated with “earning to give”. Many people involved in effective altruism still think this is a good strategy for some people, particularly those who have a good personal fit for high-paying careers. But donating to charity is not the only way to have a large impact. Many people can do even better by using their careers to help others more directly. Many people in the community do both.
This sentence is too short for such a complex topic. Whether you can (or should at all) mix your political projects with your career is an entire debate. That they throw it away entirely shows that they are very conservative: the entire idea of collective political action (which is not charity nor work) does not exist in their worldview.
I was initially curious about effective altruism ~10 years ago, but fortunately i had enough political background to realize that this is essentially a movement of silicon valley sociopaths virtue-painting their bad behavior and their working for the most evil industries on earth in the name of a hypothetical future greater good that will never materialize because they keep supporting the capitalist system that's destroying our planet. It's like saying you're gonna work for Darth Vader because the pay is good so you'll provide good for the universe; it's entirely fucked up and does not hold any form of scrutiny from actually-rational people with a modest social sciences / political background.
And it is a debate they (or at least the ones around here, I'm in Europe, having turned down each opportunity to relocate to the USA) will encourage you to think about.
For the purposes of "FAQ to sell you on the difference with earn-to-give", when earn-to-give is also a complex topic with an entire debate, the sentence they wrote is an appropriate size of answer, even if I find their writing style to be "preach to the choir" rather than actually saying something that would convince an outsider.
(Regarding un-convincing writing style: look at how caveated that whole quotation is. This is typical nerd writing (and I say that as a nerd), not bold "written in primary colours" language that political, business, and charity slogans use).
> That they throw it away entirely shows that they are very conservative: the entire idea of collective political action (which is not charity nor work) does not exist in their worldview.
They've definitely got political activities amongst their piles of recommendations, so I don't know what you have in mind here that makes them fail it. (Also, thanks to the way political language is a treadmill, when you say "conservative" I don't know if you mean "small government", "Trumpist", "pre-Trump Republican party", "Chesterton's fence", or something else; US use of the word has always been very different from European use of the term).
Don't get me wrong: I think EA is not particularly good at the "effective" part despite their attempts (and name), but you're not making a strong case here.
I've never met EA people in person, but through their blogs i've never felt invited to think about anything beyond raw numbers and vague notions disconnected from any actual social structure and injustice i could see with my eyes. Maybe i've missed the most interesting bloggers out there?
> They've definitely got political activities amongst their piles of recommendations
I would be interesting to know what you consider political. I've never seen anything resembling it. But maybe you'd call lobbying political activities? I'm thinking in terms of building collective power through union and non-electoral mobilizations. EDIT: for me warming up to this politician, that party, or taking a position in a corporation is not "politics"
> when you say "conservative"
I mean they don't appear to be revolutionaries. I can't see a better world through their writings, nothing significantly different about the power structures, merely green-coated capitalism where technology has magically solved every problem, which i thought to be naive wishful thinking that simply does away with centuries of revolutionary theory and praxis which did in fact bring social change. I personally find much more rationality, despite my disagreements, in Marx or Kropotkin (and their 21st century successors), than in the "rationalist" community online.
Or instead get brain-wormed into giving all your torment nexus dollars to "ai safety" cult that tells you that you're helping to prevent the endless torture of all sentient minds that could ever exist in the entire universe.
Hubbard proved that you can create an effective cult out of bad science fiction-- perhaps it should be surprising that it took so long for someone to improve on the design...
Earning money is not the problem. Most of us have had (or still have) morally-questionable jobs to put food on the table. That's a reasonable trade-off until we have a better, more ethical society. But making it a moral argument to work for the most evil corporations on earth to do good just doesn't make sense. At which point do you become the bad guy you're trying to avoid being through effective altruism?
As for the most evil, the competition is fierce. Of course i don't think Backblaze or OVH is just as evil as Amazon or Google. Just like i don't think La Vache Qui Rit or Loué are as evil as Carrefour and Unilever. But in my view, if you're recruiting people and aiming for a better world, you should aim higher than "my employer is not actively supporting genocide". Otherwise, your utopian project has nothing very interesting nor moral about it.
It's not a competition, but it really feels like they're all trying to win that title.
Find me an evil corporation advertised in the job listings. A single one.
Your entire argument is a projection and strawman. You have no idea what you're talking about. The imperative popularized in EA circles is to work in fields that have the most humane impacts where possible, and otherwise donate money you earn by providing value.
If you're going to argue that merely working for FANG or high-earning positions is tantamount to aiding "evil" corporations then you're chastising a lot more people than just EA adherents.
Your whole thing I suspect is informed by the sentiment that making good money must categorically be evil, or some other leftist notion.
Start applying solutions to real problems people face. That's rational. Then notice how by removing the bad actors from the equation your scifi problems disappear too. That's rational. Telling the billions of people who suffer to shut up because AI extinction is the real problem and we need to throw money at it so that a hypothetical future might be better is just completely irrational, disrespectful, and anything but altruist or efficient.
It's hard to find one that's not evil on this list, except maybe for reporter at MIT Tech Review? Some of these job titles sound good, but wield no power to make good things in practice (hence the turnover rate for many "ethicist" or QA roles). But i didn't have to scroll much to find unambigously evil corporations (eg. RAND, Google).
> work in fields that have the most humane impacts where possible
I'm sensitive to this argument, but i'm not sure that's possible in practice. It might be possible in some public sector or non-profit jobs, but i'm pretty sure it's impossible when driven by market value and share prices. EA does not ask such profound questions about actual political and social structures affecting our lives and therefore in my view silences the actual solutions to actual problems we face.
> merely working for FANG or high-earning positions is tantamount to aiding "evil" corporations
No. Many people do the minimum that's asked of them to put food on the table, that's just human and we can't really blame them. Those who go above and beyond thinking they'll save the world through Silicon Valley startups and foundations actually destroying it are the ones in my view aiding "evil".
If you wanna do good in the world, you can't just aim a bunch of money at a goal and expect the good to happen, you gotta get your hands dirty and course correct when your original plan turns out to be more harmful than helpful. I'm sure there are a lot of good intentions in there, but from the outside it's looking like the supposed rationality has been compromised by greed at the expense of the supposed altruism. As expressions of altruism go, EA just doesn't seem very effective.
The claims made there are beyond absurd and based on a remarkable absence of anything resembling reason.
That's echoed by a surprising amount of people here.
started as
But the practice of effective altruism and the problematic influential figures who are vocal effective altruists is what is bringing all of the negative attention.