Hi.I reply in peace.Effective altruism is (among other things) a school of thought that's willing to consider unpopular, highly technical, and neglected topics and take them seriously enough to consider them afresh, rationally, and spend lots of money on them where reasonable.A few such topics:—The overwhelming importance of the risk of the death of all humans—The extremely high risk of the death of all humans posed by increasingly general, capable, and opaque artificial intelligence systems—Wild animals' collective ethical value maybe being greater than humanity's—Counterintuitive conclusions of economic research (ie. becoming a physician might not help many people)—Qualitative subjective experiences might be themselves quantifiable—The byzantine travails of trying to have a consistent population ethics without making everyone miserable—The idea that people who haven't been born yet are heavily under considered in today's policy, pretty much universally—The idea that future people should be considered as ethically valuable as people alive now, irrespective of how far in the future they live—An ethical philosophy called utilitarianism—A serious consideration of the precautionary principle and the practical consequences of known moral uncertainties.Why would rational people disagree with effective altruism?Well, there are concerns that the pursuit of money and power have corrupted or allowed infiltration of the ethics of high-profile effective altruists, causing them to fail to factor in risks (including social/reputational risks) and externalities of the means they use to pursue money and power, even if genuinely for a good cause. Former crypto billionaire Sam Bankman Fried was such a high-profile effective altruist, or claimed to be, and allowed his fortune and public trust in effective altruism to collapse through his negligent, reckless, and opaque operation of a cryptocurrency trading framework, essentially a shoddily run stock market for highly unstable and speculative cryptocurrencies which did its finances duplicitously.There have also been exposés of unrepresentative examples of sexual harassment due to the high proportion of rich white males in effective altruist organizations. It must be noted for full context that such organizations have lower rates of sexual harassment in general, compared with the average.I'm greatly enamored with the thinking of many in the effective altruism community and consider myself part of the intellectual movement, trying my best to live up to utilitarian and effective altruist ideals. It's important to say that because, since I'm part of it, some may say that I am less likely to present the strongest criticisms. Nevertheless, I hope critics will read my brief description above and find their points fairly included.Critics of effective altruism, if I've forgotten something (and I most likely have) please feel free to call out my exclusion of it.Hope this helps.
- No location available
-

Hi.I reply in peace.Effective altruism is (among other things) a school of thought that's willing to consider unpopular, highly technical, and neglected topics and take them seriously enough to consider them afresh, rationally, and spend lots of money on them where reasonable.A few such topics:—The overwhelming importance of the risk of the death of all humans—The extremely high risk of the death of all humans posed by increasingly general, capable, and opaque artificial intelligence systems—Wild animals' collective ethical value maybe being greater than humanity's—Counterintuitive conclusions of economic research (ie. becoming a physician might not help many people)—Qualitative subjective experiences might be themselves quantifiable—The byzantine travails of trying to have a consistent population ethics without making everyone miserable—The idea that people who haven't been born yet are heavily under considered in today's policy, pretty much universally—The idea that future people should be considered as ethically valuable as people alive now, irrespective of how far in the future they live—An ethical philosophy called utilitarianism—A serious consideration of the precautionary principle and the practical consequences of known moral uncertainties.Why would rational people disagree with effective altruism?Well, there are concerns that the pursuit of money and power have corrupted or allowed infiltration of the ethics of high-profile effective altruists, causing them to fail to factor in risks (including social/reputational risks) and externalities of the means they use to pursue money and power, even if genuinely for a good cause. Former crypto billionaire Sam Bankman Fried was such a high-profile effective altruist, or claimed to be, and allowed his fortune and public trust in effective altruism to collapse through his negligent, reckless, and opaque operation of a cryptocurrency trading framework, essentially a shoddily run stock market for highly unstable and speculative cryptocurrencies which did its finances duplicitously.There have also been exposés of unrepresentative examples of sexual harassment due to the high proportion of rich white males in effective altruist organizations. It must be noted for full context that such organizations have lower rates of sexual harassment in general, compared with the average.I'm greatly enamored with the thinking of many in the effective altruism community and consider myself part of the intellectual movement, trying my best to live up to utilitarian and effective altruist ideals. It's important to say that because, since I'm part of it, some may say that I am less likely to present the strongest criticisms. Nevertheless, I hope critics will read my brief description above and find their points fairly included.Critics of effective altruism, if I've forgotten something (and I most likely have) please feel free to call out my exclusion of it.Hope this helps.
- No location available
-