How to improve Effective Altruism?

February 2, 2021

Reading Time: 6 min

The lines on Effective Altruism seem to be drawn. Its proponents like the ambition and the scientific approach, its critics dismiss it for ignoring the root causes of systemic problems in the world. There's a way to move beyond this stale dichotomy.

Not all altruism is “Effective”

About a quarter of all young people who approach us for jobs have heard of, or are members of, the Effective Altruism (EA) community or some adjacent ones, such as 80,000 hours.

Somehow, because of the work the Altruist League does, or perhaps just because of the mention of the altruism in our name, they assume that we must be associated with the EA movement as well. We are not, although we have working relationships with a number of local EA chapters.

I love hearing from the EA crowd. I am often impressed by their passion for improving the world, their open mind to divergent points of view and self-criticism, as well as their scientific and level-headed approach to the world.

That said, at the Altruist League we do not necessarily believe in EA as a viable way for solving the systemic issues of our time or reforming philanthropy. But we don’t agree with critics who dismiss it either. We believe that some aspects of EA can have a role to play in improving our societies.

Effective Altruism: the value

The Effective Altruism movement arose out of a desire to professionalize philanthropy and make it more efficient. Its founders posed the question: how do we improve the world in the best possible way, doing the most good?

And fair enough – this is obviously part of the Altruist League’s mission as well. Plagued by pet project focus, lack of strategic or scientific base, and focused on the warm glow and the social prestige, philanthropy is certainly ripe for a shake-up.

From a theoretical standpoint, EA was theoretically established chiefly through the writings of the likes of Peter Singer and William MacAskill. They urged for prioritizing problems (often neglected ones) which have the highest potential impact while being realistically solvable.

Such thinking requires a rigorously scientific approach and produces ideas that combine scale and measurability, such as maximizing the number and happiness of people in future generations (hence a focus on poverty reduction), easing the suffering of animals, etc.

In some cases, EA’s arguments are strikingly relevant. For example, in the context of ensuring the well-being of future generations EA insists on prioritizing the so-called existential risks to the civilization (nuclear war, biological weapons, artificial intelligence, etc.) and has been calling for a more serious approach to preventing and dealing with pandemics. How relevant that sounds in the era of COVID-19!

Effective altruism: the habitual criticism

It’s not hard to find flaws with the EA approach, and many have done so. The EA community is hermetic and depends on funding from a handful of donors. The movement gives the Silicon Valley types and privileged youths a safe space to theorize about improving the world and feel good about it. All the while, it remains silent on the core reasons of why the world is messed up in the first place, i.e. all the historical considerations of wealth inequality, race relations, gender, etc.

The focus on cost-effectiveness tends to fall apart the moment you start talking about things that are essential for improving the world but take time and can’t really be reliably measured, such as investment into grassroots movements, improving governance and democracy of countries, and similar issues.

EA’s lofty preoccupation with long-term existential problems is in its worst incarnation just a distraction. Billionaires love to theorize about how and why artificial intelligence might kill us. It’s a way for those with little vision or courage for leading change to seem to be invested in the future of the civilization without getting their hands dirty with the actual problems of today.

Improving Effective Altruism

The laziest criticism of EA usually stops at “it is grounded in the current system and ignores the systemic causes of today’s problems,” which effectively ends the discussion. This is as dismissive as it is useless. Some of these authors seem to see only one pathway to change: the one where billionaires tear up their clothes, give away all their money, tearfully beg forgiveness, and withdraw to a monastery to pray away their privilege till the rest of their lives.

That ain’t gonna happen. Just like philanthropists can improve their actions with the right incentives, so can the Effective Altruist community become much more, well, effective, with the right tweaks to its mission. I can think of at least two ways in which this may happen.

One: better change models

The EA community is a repository of enormous enthusiasm and brainpower. Its ability to approach problems analytically should be tapped into constructively.

For example, investment in grassroots movements which we recommend is based on a bit of social change theory and the financial theory of diversification (more in our methodology). This is not a bad foundation but it would be even better to have an authoritative, mathematical model that shows how systemic problems are interconnected and dependent on underlying factors – from policy and legislation to the media to anti-corruption activism to citizen action.

Is this possible? I don’t know, but the likes of Goldstone and in particular Turchin have certainly blazed a path by modeling and comparing societal cycles across different periods. The field of cliodynamics should be a fertile ground for EA-minded people. The benefits of any breakthroughs in understanding and speeding up change, as well as avoiding social upheaval, would be enormous.

Two: channeling the enthusiasm

The EA community would benefit from having more experience with trying to create practical change on a small scale, on the ground. The organizers should make a conscious effort in this direction. They are already doing a brilliant job of keeping an open mind and regularly submitting their own assumptions to critique – this is part of the EA approach. But criticism can only come from new experience and new exposure.

EA and 80,000 Hours should therefore suggest to their members to become involved in grassroots action. This should be a prerequisite for any serious engagement with the movement itself. Those wishing to fix the world at a global scale first need to understand what it is like to try and change minds on the ground, about practical issues, and without having billionaire backing.