Notes on Effective Altruism (EA): michaelnotebook.com/eanotes/
Conversation
Really enjoyed this!
Noodling: say we take the stance that the totalizing version of EA is troubled, but on the margin, as a *lens* to add to one's repertoire, it leads to interesting ideas and inspiring behavior.
Is it possible to make strong institutions based on that stance?
1
6
Like many strong institutions, EA's strength in recruiting young people, inspiring high-cost actions, fundraising, etc seems to depend on making crisp, strident, highly legible claims: shut up or multiply!
Is a "metarational" institution doomed to seem milquetoast by comparison?
1
4
This seems like a much weaker attractor: "the mutilitarians try to figure out what's best by weighing a well-balanced zoo of considerations, always sensitive to the individual and the context." Can you build a movement out of that?
2
7
One way to look at this is: this sort of reduces to what traditional large philanthropies do! They have some semi-illegible set of values and processes; they make decisions on causes in a way that's sort of patterned and sort of idiosyncratic.
(Which parallels your comments about "weak EA" not offering much fresh moral insight. But it's interesting to note that "weak EA" also seems much less compelling as an engine of recruiting / fundraising / self-authoring)
1
2
Yes, very much.
1
1
Show replies
I feel like the difference between “weak EA” and traditional large philanthropy is often in the cause area? Weak EA isn’t a totalizing commitment, but it notices that the vast majority of philanthropies are doing a bad job of achieving stated aims.
1
1
(Unless I’m misunderstanding what you mean by weak EA)
1
1
Show replies