Prior to ~2021 or so, I felt that many if not most in the EA community not only wanted to donate their money in the manner that most effectively saved lives, but also donate as much of their money as they could while still avoiding relative poverty. So many were extremely frugal, living in small homes or apartments, donating as much money as they could afford to purchase mosquito nets, vaccines, and deworming medication for others, as well as many donating one of their kidneys to strangers, all things I think most would find commendable.
Billionaires who live luxurious lifestyles and donate to prevent AI catastrophes was not something I was aware of at all prior to ~2021. I'm not sure how that ever became part of the movement.
In fact, longtermism in general wasn't something I was aware of until sometime around then. Purchasing mosquito nets, vaccines, and deworming medication has a demonstrable impact for saving lives and objectively reduces human suffering. In contrast, while AI, nuclear warfare, etc. can indeed kill billions, donating to those charities has absolutely no demonstrable impact. It's possible it has an impact, but it is near impossible to prove.
GiveWell states the following:
GiveWell evaluates potential top charities along four main criteria: (1) Effectiveness, as supported by evidence the program the charity is implementing saves or improves lives; (2) cost-effectiveness, or how much ‘bang for the buck’ the charity offers in terms of lives saved or improved per donation; (3) room for more funding, or the charity’s ability to put additional donations to use; and (4) transparency.
So certain charities likely do save lives, but would never be recommended by GiveWell because they aren't transparent enough to verify that. There has to be concrete proof in order to get a recommendation, which is a perfectly reasonable decision on their part, and something I thought was the felt among all in the EA community until I heard some advocating for charities to reduce the chances of AI catastrophes and nuclear warfare, but those people always felt like a fringe part of the community until they started getting more news coverage.
I'm not condemning longtermism outright, I think those who with the appropriate skills should work towards reducing the likelihood of nuclear warfare and AI induced disasters, but I don't see how it could possibly be considered "effective" altruism to donate money to charities tackling those issues considering we have not the slightest clue as to whether it's effective.
In a world where people die of preventable and curable diseases because governments choose not to spend more (or more effectively) on foreign aid, I absolutely believe it is critical that people take responsibility for saving those that they can. If I see someone drowning at the beach, I'm not going to say "Well I'm not going to save them because the government didn't pay for lifeguards." Sure, they probably should have, but at the end of the day someone is living or dying based on my decision: I'm going to try to save them. The same is true for those dying of malaria, neglected tropical diseases and malnutrition: yes, I believe governments should take responsibility for those issues, but they haven't, and if I don't donate what I can, more people will die. Hundreds of thousands die each year from malaria and NTDs and millions from malnutrition. While I'm not remotely capable of solving those issues, I absolutely am capable of saving some of those people, which certainly has an enormous impact on those I can save (also, while hundreds of thousands die from malaria each year, millions suffer from it but survive, so not only can reduce death but also pain.) I think trying to get more people to donate to charities that are demonstrably effective at saving lives is extremely important. With the "Effective Altruism" movement now including stuff like longtermism, as well as having its reputation ruined, I'm not sure how advocacy should move forward. On one hand, I don't think it'd ever be good for it to be an ideology: one should evaluate individual concepts by themselves, not tie them into some larger ideology and then decide based on one's personal feelings towards that ideology whether to support it. Still, it's helpful to have terms to describe concepts in fewer words, as well as have tangible goals for advocacy, as the more people that donate to charities that effectively save lives, the more lives that are saved overall.
Comments
Prior to ~2021 or so, I felt that many if not most in the EA community not only wanted to donate their money in the manner that most effectively saved lives, but also donate as much of their money as they could while still avoiding relative poverty. So many were extremely frugal, living in small homes or apartments, donating as much money as they could afford to purchase mosquito nets, vaccines, and deworming medication for others, as well as many donating one of their kidneys to strangers, all things I think most would find commendable.
Billionaires who live luxurious lifestyles and donate to prevent AI catastrophes was not something I was aware of at all prior to ~2021. I'm not sure how that ever became part of the movement.
In fact, longtermism in general wasn't something I was aware of until sometime around then. Purchasing mosquito nets, vaccines, and deworming medication has a demonstrable impact for saving lives and objectively reduces human suffering. In contrast, while AI, nuclear warfare, etc. can indeed kill billions, donating to those charities has absolutely no demonstrable impact. It's possible it has an impact, but it is near impossible to prove.
GiveWell states the following:
So certain charities likely do save lives, but would never be recommended by GiveWell because they aren't transparent enough to verify that. There has to be concrete proof in order to get a recommendation, which is a perfectly reasonable decision on their part, and something I thought was the felt among all in the EA community until I heard some advocating for charities to reduce the chances of AI catastrophes and nuclear warfare, but those people always felt like a fringe part of the community until they started getting more news coverage.
I'm not condemning longtermism outright, I think those who with the appropriate skills should work towards reducing the likelihood of nuclear warfare and AI induced disasters, but I don't see how it could possibly be considered "effective" altruism to donate money to charities tackling those issues considering we have not the slightest clue as to whether it's effective.
In a world where people die of preventable and curable diseases because governments choose not to spend more (or more effectively) on foreign aid, I absolutely believe it is critical that people take responsibility for saving those that they can. If I see someone drowning at the beach, I'm not going to say "Well I'm not going to save them because the government didn't pay for lifeguards." Sure, they probably should have, but at the end of the day someone is living or dying based on my decision: I'm going to try to save them. The same is true for those dying of malaria, neglected tropical diseases and malnutrition: yes, I believe governments should take responsibility for those issues, but they haven't, and if I don't donate what I can, more people will die. Hundreds of thousands die each year from malaria and NTDs and millions from malnutrition. While I'm not remotely capable of solving those issues, I absolutely am capable of saving some of those people, which certainly has an enormous impact on those I can save (also, while hundreds of thousands die from malaria each year, millions suffer from it but survive, so not only can reduce death but also pain.) I think trying to get more people to donate to charities that are demonstrably effective at saving lives is extremely important. With the "Effective Altruism" movement now including stuff like longtermism, as well as having its reputation ruined, I'm not sure how advocacy should move forward. On one hand, I don't think it'd ever be good for it to be an ideology: one should evaluate individual concepts by themselves, not tie them into some larger ideology and then decide based on one's personal feelings towards that ideology whether to support it. Still, it's helpful to have terms to describe concepts in fewer words, as well as have tangible goals for advocacy, as the more people that donate to charities that effectively save lives, the more lives that are saved overall.