The superhero we don't need (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Elizabeth Holmes dressed in the same style every day: black turtleneck sweater, black slacks, and black low-slung shoes. This “uniform” underlined her deified status as a busy billionaire dedicated to changing the world, setting her apart from mere mortals with time to choose their clothes. “My mom had me in black turtlenecks when I was, like, eight,” she told one women’s magazine. “I probably have 150 of these. It makes it easy, because every day you put on the same thing and don’t have to think about it — one less thing in your life. All my focus is on the work. I take it so seriously; I’m sure that translates into how I dress.”
Yet this story of her image, like the blood-test technology that won her fame and fortune, was fake. One former colleague later revealed how a “frumpy” Holmes had adopted the look to mimic the signature style of Steve Jobs, even tracking down the exact Issey Miyake turtleneck favoured by the Apple founder. Her pose as a cool, black-clad genius worked for a while, fooling some of the best-known financiers and public figures in the United States. Then it had to be ditched in favour of dull suits to appear in court for fraud. And soon will switch to dowdy prison scrubs after her conviction and 11-year sentence.
Silicon Valley superstars love to embrace a simple style. Rich enough to buy anything in the world and puffed up with self-importance, they use clothing to send out the message that they are too important to waste their precious intellect and time on deciding what to wear every day. “I really want to clear my life to make it so that I have to make as few decisions as possible about anything except how to best serve this community,” said Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg when quizzed about his uniform of grey T-shirts and blue jeans. (This is, lest we forget, the man who set up a website to rank attractive women at university that exploded into one of the planet’s most pernicious companies.)
Sam Bankman-Fried also tapped into this approach: he presented himself as a financial prodigy who disdained societal mores while set on saving the world. He went for the scruffy skateboarder look, a man-child with an unkempt bubble of hair who even wore his T-shirt, shorts and sneakers when sitting on stage next to a former US president and a former British prime minister.
It is no surprise that Bill Clinton and Tony Blair fell for such a phoney. Yet they weren’t the only ones suckered by this high priest of cryptocurrency, who preached of earning billions through his unique financial acumen, promised to pour the money into philanthropy, and then crashed to earth with his fortune evaporating. “SBF” championed a modish millennial approach to philanthropy, that claims to harness data, in tandem with supreme brainpower, moral leadership and relentless logic to improve the cost-efficiency of charity and tackle state failures. But his downfall has exposed the hollowness at the heart of this cult that has become as much part of Silicon Valley’s uniformity as their T-shirts and turtlenecks.
The astonishing rise and fall of the disgraced crypto king began over a meal with William MacAskill, a prominent young Oxford University philosopher. This Scottish professor, guru of the effective altruism movement, persuaded the vegan SBF, then a student, to forget about devoting his life to animal welfare and instead focus on making as much money as possible for donation to good causes. So SBF duly set out to become mega-rich, ostensibly on the basis that this would let him do as much good as possible in the world, and he seduced admirers and investors alike with his sense of mission while pouring money into MacAskill’s own projects.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIsn’t this just another manifestation of the globalist disease: avowing enormous compassion towards people you don’t know and know nothing about whilst completely ignoring, even despising, your own immediate neighbours.
Dickens satirises the type in Mrs Jellyby in Bleak House who neglects her children and bankrupts her family in the name of charity towards an African country whose ruler in fact has no interest in the charitable scheme she wants to promote. The world is still full of Mrs Jellybys.
Laughed out loud at that, given the author’s organization.
Laughed out loud at that, given the author’s organization.
Not completely — there is a frat here that is quite self-serving.
No. What he’s actually saying, all fraudsters and conmen aside, is that we should appreciate what our thought leaders (such as, ahem, himself) say; and not what our achievers (such as, ahem, myself) do. Fortunately, I am neither compelled to listen to him nor persuaded to do so, having witnessed time-after-time the effectiveness in action of our politicians, journalists and lecturers.
Enormous false compassion in your own self aggrandizing and self promoting interests as a great white savior to the huddled dark skinned masses.
It’s not just billionaire plutocrats who fall for this disease. Many reside in the upper echelons of the Public & 3rd Sectors. They wrap themselves in the shroud of strangers misfortune to extract lucrative salaries & pension, with little or no practical accountability, whilst emitting a warm glow of smug self satisfaction. All the while they dispense unearned “public wealth” ,ie people’s taxes, to help “ others”, about whom they know or care little about. Those who live off the teat of the welfare state will always vote for more milk.
Dickens satirises the type in Mrs Jellyby in Bleak House who neglects her children and bankrupts her family in the name of charity towards an African country whose ruler in fact has no interest in the charitable scheme she wants to promote. The world is still full of Mrs Jellybys.
Not completely — there is a frat here that is quite self-serving.
No. What he’s actually saying, all fraudsters and conmen aside, is that we should appreciate what our thought leaders (such as, ahem, himself) say; and not what our achievers (such as, ahem, myself) do. Fortunately, I am neither compelled to listen to him nor persuaded to do so, having witnessed time-after-time the effectiveness in action of our politicians, journalists and lecturers.
Enormous false compassion in your own self aggrandizing and self promoting interests as a great white savior to the huddled dark skinned masses.
It’s not just billionaire plutocrats who fall for this disease. Many reside in the upper echelons of the Public & 3rd Sectors. They wrap themselves in the shroud of strangers misfortune to extract lucrative salaries & pension, with little or no practical accountability, whilst emitting a warm glow of smug self satisfaction. All the while they dispense unearned “public wealth” ,ie people’s taxes, to help “ others”, about whom they know or care little about. Those who live off the teat of the welfare state will always vote for more milk.
Isn’t this just another manifestation of the globalist disease: avowing enormous compassion towards people you don’t know and know nothing about whilst completely ignoring, even despising, your own immediate neighbours.
So what’s new? From Gilded Age robber barons putting on a show of philanthropy to modern CEO’s putting BLM slogans in their Twitter handle to avoid paying their minority workers a decent wage, it is the same grift in a different decade. Anyone else want to throw these criminals in jail and jam some anti-trust regulation down these corporations’ throats?
Here here. Unfortunately it took a Great Depression, the rise of Communism, and a world war to finally pry the hands of elites off the levers of power enough for FDR to come to power and get the New Deal passed, and then it took another world war that left Europe a broken and divided mess to further cement the power of the American middle class. It will probably take something similarly catastrophic, or worse, to dislodge the aristocrats of today.
The New Deal was a failure and all FDR did was install a form of corporate socialism where the corporate elite could rely on the US tax dollar to permanently insulate them from the harsh winds of competition.
As to cementing the power of the middle class, that was down to the spoils of war that put the US in an unassailable position to exploit the rest of the world. The US is not the fist nation to mistake the spoils of war for the rewards of virtue.
Someone swallowed the Kool-aid. FDR’s “New Deal” put us back into the bonds we had as a nation once escaped. You can never increase Liberty through theft.
I think you are confused. FDR and his whole cabinet were part of the elite. The New Deal extended elite control from finance and commerce into the government, spawning a host of new positions for unelected elitists to occupy, insulated from answering to the electorate.
Where where?
The New Deal was a failure and all FDR did was install a form of corporate socialism where the corporate elite could rely on the US tax dollar to permanently insulate them from the harsh winds of competition.
As to cementing the power of the middle class, that was down to the spoils of war that put the US in an unassailable position to exploit the rest of the world. The US is not the fist nation to mistake the spoils of war for the rewards of virtue.
Someone swallowed the Kool-aid. FDR’s “New Deal” put us back into the bonds we had as a nation once escaped. You can never increase Liberty through theft.
I think you are confused. FDR and his whole cabinet were part of the elite. The New Deal extended elite control from finance and commerce into the government, spawning a host of new positions for unelected elitists to occupy, insulated from answering to the electorate.
Where where?
Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote about this way back in 1995. The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy. Highly recommended. https://www.amazon.com/Vision-Anointed-Self-Congratulation-Social-Policy/dp/046508995X
This springs to mind The Widow’s Offering
41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.
43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others.44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”
Excellent post. However, to embrace this teaching one needs to believe in the biblical God of Western civilization. Alas, that belief has disappeared from the “annointed” and much of the populace.
If the teaching has merits, those merits are unlikely only perceptible to those whose faculties are saddled with a belief in the biblical God
If the teaching has merits, those merits are unlikely only perceptible to those whose faculties are saddled with a belief in the biblical God
Excellent post. However, to embrace this teaching one needs to believe in the biblical God of Western civilization. Alas, that belief has disappeared from the “annointed” and much of the populace.
I have this book, just started it.
Anything by Sowell is highly recommended.
This springs to mind The Widow’s Offering
41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.
43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others.44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”
I have this book, just started it.
Anything by Sowell is highly recommended.
“Robber baron” Andrew Carnegie gave the US over 2500 libraries. In fact, most of the Gilded Age mega rich donated 90% of their wealth to real charities that benefitted countless people in tangible ways. Was it a “show”? Who cares? It was palpable net positive compared to, say, Leonard Bernstein throwing a party for the Black Panthers so Manhattan swells could brag about it (like Tony Soprano’s snotty neighbors inviting him to the club for a round of golf).
In any case, this Fried character certainly didn’t cook up the scheme on his own. That most of his money (or whatever it was) went to Democrat politicians reveals him to be just another component in the corruption machine the gullible call government.
Here here. Unfortunately it took a Great Depression, the rise of Communism, and a world war to finally pry the hands of elites off the levers of power enough for FDR to come to power and get the New Deal passed, and then it took another world war that left Europe a broken and divided mess to further cement the power of the American middle class. It will probably take something similarly catastrophic, or worse, to dislodge the aristocrats of today.
Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote about this way back in 1995. The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy. Highly recommended. https://www.amazon.com/Vision-Anointed-Self-Congratulation-Social-Policy/dp/046508995X
“Robber baron” Andrew Carnegie gave the US over 2500 libraries. In fact, most of the Gilded Age mega rich donated 90% of their wealth to real charities that benefitted countless people in tangible ways. Was it a “show”? Who cares? It was palpable net positive compared to, say, Leonard Bernstein throwing a party for the Black Panthers so Manhattan swells could brag about it (like Tony Soprano’s snotty neighbors inviting him to the club for a round of golf).
In any case, this Fried character certainly didn’t cook up the scheme on his own. That most of his money (or whatever it was) went to Democrat politicians reveals him to be just another component in the corruption machine the gullible call government.
So what’s new? From Gilded Age robber barons putting on a show of philanthropy to modern CEO’s putting BLM slogans in their Twitter handle to avoid paying their minority workers a decent wage, it is the same grift in a different decade. Anyone else want to throw these criminals in jail and jam some anti-trust regulation down these corporations’ throats?
One example of long term altruism by the filthy rich, which might be an exception to the embarrassing examples of SBF and Elizabeth Holmes, is the Fuggerai in Augsburg. Jacob Fugger was a banker to both the Vatican and the Hapsburgs and was plainly not short of a guilder or two. 500 years later his foundation still provides social housing for the equivalent of a guilder a year – less than one euro. But you have to be Catholic and say a daily prayer for the repose of Jacob’s soul. The foundation’s assets are invested in property such as forestry which provides a low annual yield, but goes on indefinitely, unlike the latest hi tech. And it is good for the environment.
And the ancient housing has accumulated history of its own – Mozart’s great grandfather was a resident.
One example of long term altruism by the filthy rich, which might be an exception to the embarrassing examples of SBF and Elizabeth Holmes, is the Fuggerai in Augsburg. Jacob Fugger was a banker to both the Vatican and the Hapsburgs and was plainly not short of a guilder or two. 500 years later his foundation still provides social housing for the equivalent of a guilder a year – less than one euro. But you have to be Catholic and say a daily prayer for the repose of Jacob’s soul. The foundation’s assets are invested in property such as forestry which provides a low annual yield, but goes on indefinitely, unlike the latest hi tech. And it is good for the environment.
And the ancient housing has accumulated history of its own – Mozart’s great grandfather was a resident.
All altruism is evil, because all altruism is a lie. All human action is motivated by self interest. Even if giving to others, people do it because they either want to be seen as generous, or they derive a sense of satisfaction from it, or other even less altruistic motives.
More telling are those who CLAIM altruism. These always have insidious motives.
Interesting comment. I think I mostly agree with the sentiment. Perfect altruism is impossible with the exception of Christ or times the Holy Spirit enables people.
yes, 100%. if you want to do something for someone, then do it. when you talk about it, you betray your motive.
Interesting comment. I think I mostly agree with the sentiment. Perfect altruism is impossible with the exception of Christ or times the Holy Spirit enables people.
yes, 100%. if you want to do something for someone, then do it. when you talk about it, you betray your motive.
All altruism is evil, because all altruism is a lie. All human action is motivated by self interest. Even if giving to others, people do it because they either want to be seen as generous, or they derive a sense of satisfaction from it, or other even less altruistic motives.
More telling are those who CLAIM altruism. These always have insidious motives.
I get the bit about SBF, but who’s the second “new age messiah”? Please tell me you’re not talking about Musk. Putting him and this con-man in the same article is like putting filet mignon on moldy bread. And serving it on a silver platter.
I believe he is referring the Elizabeth Holmes as the second “new age Messiah”.
He was talking about Holmes, I believe.
I’m afraid that, not being particularly interested in “new age messiahs”, that passed me by.
Who really cares about these people? Its all just tabloid gossip.
(But only in a tiny portion.)
I believe he is referring the Elizabeth Holmes as the second “new age Messiah”.
He was talking about Holmes, I believe.
I’m afraid that, not being particularly interested in “new age messiahs”, that passed me by.
Who really cares about these people? Its all just tabloid gossip.
(But only in a tiny portion.)
I get the bit about SBF, but who’s the second “new age messiah”? Please tell me you’re not talking about Musk. Putting him and this con-man in the same article is like putting filet mignon on moldy bread. And serving it on a silver platter.
Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, White countries for EVERYBODY!
Massive immigration and FORCED assimilation is called GENOCIDE when it’s done in Tibet.
When it’s done in White countries, it’s called “diversity.”
Diversity is a code word for White Genocide.
Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, White countries for EVERYBODY!
Massive immigration and FORCED assimilation is called GENOCIDE when it’s done in Tibet.
When it’s done in White countries, it’s called “diversity.”
Diversity is a code word for White Genocide.
Leaving it to people like the author to determine what the “fair share” might be.
I think most people would assume fair share to be paying the taxman the same percentage of their income as the ordinary worker does, unfortunately this rarely happens
That is the problem. What is “fair share”?
The super rich already pay most of the taxes.
A presidential contender once said that 47% of workers pay no tax and was pilloried for it. It is however true.
Flat tax anyone?
Or would the ensuing layoff of investment advisors, tax accountants and lawyers be too much?
I think most people would assume fair share to be paying the taxman the same percentage of their income as the ordinary worker does, unfortunately this rarely happens
That is the problem. What is “fair share”?
The super rich already pay most of the taxes.
A presidential contender once said that 47% of workers pay no tax and was pilloried for it. It is however true.
Flat tax anyone?
Or would the ensuing layoff of investment advisors, tax accountants and lawyers be too much?
Leaving it to people like the author to determine what the “fair share” might be.
“It’s that top 1% that probably contributes more to making the world a better place than the 99%,” he concluded, outrageously.
But, they sort-of do, don’t they?
yes.
yes.
“It’s that top 1% that probably contributes more to making the world a better place than the 99%,” he concluded, outrageously.
But, they sort-of do, don’t they?
It was vomit making to listen to Bezos saying how difficult it was to do philanthropy Well he could start by paying his workers properly and allowing unionisation. Still Bezos may have a point. A decade ago Bill Gates vowed to give away his fortune. Then he was worth a paltry $38 Billion, now he is worth $105 BILLION. Strange that.
It was vomit making to listen to Bezos saying how difficult it was to do philanthropy Well he could start by paying his workers properly and allowing unionisation. Still Bezos may have a point. A decade ago Bill Gates vowed to give away his fortune. Then he was worth a paltry $38 Billion, now he is worth $105 BILLION. Strange that.
Well what motivates people to gather wealth? Power and Wealth both tend to corrupt but it is only once someone has reached the recognised level that they can be assessed from the morality standpoint. Interesting that the inclusion of the quote from Plutocrats (in the interest of balance?) uses the argument offered by an anonymous Republican billionaire.
I thought the same was odd. We all clearly know that if SBF donated tens of millions to republicans, the headlines/narrative around the globe would be, “Corrupt Republican Donor’s FTX Empire Crashes, Leaving Millions Defrauded”
I thought the same was odd. We all clearly know that if SBF donated tens of millions to republicans, the headlines/narrative around the globe would be, “Corrupt Republican Donor’s FTX Empire Crashes, Leaving Millions Defrauded”
Well what motivates people to gather wealth? Power and Wealth both tend to corrupt but it is only once someone has reached the recognised level that they can be assessed from the morality standpoint. Interesting that the inclusion of the quote from Plutocrats (in the interest of balance?) uses the argument offered by an anonymous Republican billionaire.
I took decades and millions dead to get rid of SBF, Stringer and McCaskells’ ideaological ancestors who rose in the 1930s – this generation of demi gods don’t seem to have the same strength of will. I hope am not proved wrong!
Oops Singer – mixed him up with the legendary eponymous scrum-half
Oops Singer – mixed him up with the legendary eponymous scrum-half
I took decades and millions dead to get rid of SBF, Stringer and McCaskells’ ideaological ancestors who rose in the 1930s – this generation of demi gods don’t seem to have the same strength of will. I hope am not proved wrong!
He told you his name, who, and what he was. How dumb are you people?
Bankman “I will bank $$$ for myself.” Man, “One who does the deed.” Fried freed, let go, “Available to do what they wish.”
He told you his name, who, and what he was. How dumb are you people?
Bankman “I will bank $$$ for myself.” Man, “One who does the deed.” Fried freed, let go, “Available to do what they wish.”
“As two new age messiahs stumble and fall, we ought to be more sceptical over billionaire geeks posing as god-like saviours”
I could not be more sceptcal thanks very much. Plenty of people knew SBF was phoney. Only greedy people and people who have not done their research before giving away their cash will lose money with such a BS scheme.
“As two new age messiahs stumble and fall, we ought to be more sceptical over billionaire geeks posing as god-like saviours”
I could not be more sceptcal thanks very much. Plenty of people knew SBF was phoney. Only greedy people and people who have not done their research before giving away their cash will lose money with such a BS scheme.
It’s very little to do with money.
The super-rich (and the wannabe super-rich) are riddled with guilt. They know, deep down, that they got lucky, or that the system was gamed in their favour. They know, deep down, that it’s not their talent or skill which got them there. So they feel incredibly GUILTY and feel they must ‘do good’ before it all disappears in a flash.
Of course, some do come to believe their own hype, and some are genuinely talented. But anything with the effective altruism stamp is just another form of woke virtue signalling. Except that the person they are really signalling to is themselves.
It’s very little to do with money.
The super-rich (and the wannabe super-rich) are riddled with guilt. They know, deep down, that they got lucky, or that the system was gamed in their favour. They know, deep down, that it’s not their talent or skill which got them there. So they feel incredibly GUILTY and feel they must ‘do good’ before it all disappears in a flash.
Of course, some do come to believe their own hype, and some are genuinely talented. But anything with the effective altruism stamp is just another form of woke virtue signalling. Except that the person they are really signalling to is themselves.
Elon Musk got it right when he responded to Elizabeth Warren’s plea for taxing billionaires. I’m far more confident in Elon putting his gains to good, charitable use rather than corrupt politicians like Liz who produced nothing of value to anyone.
Sure, success goes to their heads. Bill Gates is a monster. Elon created tremendous economic and societal value in Tesla and SpaceX, yet he lives a relatively modest life. Why is he suddenly compared to a fraud like SBF, who’s the opposite?
The time to tax Elon is when he dies, in his estate. Until then it’s just a money grab by people who think they know more than proven entrepreneurs how to put capital to good use.
Elon Musk got it right when he responded to Elizabeth Warren’s plea for taxing billionaires. I’m far more confident in Elon putting his gains to good, charitable use rather than corrupt politicians like Liz who produced nothing of value to anyone.
Sure, success goes to their heads. Bill Gates is a monster. Elon created tremendous economic and societal value in Tesla and SpaceX, yet he lives a relatively modest life. Why is he suddenly compared to a fraud like SBF, who’s the opposite?
The time to tax Elon is when he dies, in his estate. Until then it’s just a money grab by people who think they know more than proven entrepreneurs how to put capital to good use.
Lordy. Giving Canada’s Minister of Finance credit for being sharp on how evil the rich are is a joke. The government she works in has f**ked us citizens for the next few generations and she had played a big role in that. Ethically she is dirt. Bezos at least delivers is our books.
Wow this article is just one large smear piece. I really would not expect this from the author who I respected for consistently shining light on the counter-narrative to the origin of Covid. This article disappoints me.
Firstly, as I have commented in a previous article Effective Altruism (EA) is quite a large and diverse movement. Yes, it might lean-liberal and speak to issues that concern university-educated people but many people within it actually try very hard to identify its biases and correct them.
It is not a cult because some famous tech people identify with some of it’s causes. It’s an attempt to think about how one does good. This is very reasonable as indeed some charitable interventions are better than others.
Peter Singer’s argument about the drowning child does not lead one to eugenicist views of killing disabled babies. These are two separate arguments that he has made. You might hate him for the second one but that does not negate the first one. Debate the first one on its merits or that is just a smear, like saying the lab-leak theory is being promoted by people with racist/anti-Semitic views so it must just be dismissed.
The philosophy does not claim its morally bad to slave away in a job that’s useful. It argues one can do various different things and one should consider how they can have the biggest impact. Yes, it does say some very smart people may not have a significantly marginal impact on a given cause if they just did volunteer work that doesn’t utilize their brainy advantage. So instead one might earn to give. That is controversial and may give cover to tax avoidance as stated in the article but this is definitely not the only recommendation made. One also might build tech company or engineering companies that tackle the issues one cares about. Fintech startups like Wave in Kenya have been built by EA-aligned people trying to increase financial inclusion in Africa to create sustainable ways of dealing with poverty.
Social work opportunities and charity work are encouragd by EA. Members of the CEA, the admin body of the movement has a number of social workers. It’s just not for everybody. Again, this isn’t a very reasonable assertion.
It does ignore economic inequality but I also think that saying this is a cover to tiptoe around billionaires is harsh. Libertarians also couldn’t care less about inequality. An argument for EA (not the only one) is that inequality is not bad in itself. The fact that I am a well-off South African does not make people in Kenya, Zambia, Mozambique or even South Africa any poorer nor should that be why we care about people who live in absolute poverty. We should care about people because they are living in absolute deprivation. So a poor person in Europe who has most of their survival needs taken care of should be prioritized below a poor person in Mozambique who doesn’t. Again, this is debatable. One might think it is a bad to break that connection with those one lives around. But then debate this on its merits not just give the most uncharitable interpretation of the view.
The faults of SBF, Bill Gates, Bezos, Zuckers and the rest raised in this article may be valid. But the smear on a movement/philosophy followed by middle class people who just want to Ben smarter about how they do good is unnecessary. This smear has forced me to take issue with the article.
So what would you say the reason that the intentions never seem to match the results and these projects always seem to have extra baggage that no one asked for is?
I don’t know why you say the intentions never match the results.
SBF is one EA financier who did shady things (I think, not really that informed on him). Elon kind of likes EA and does things that some people like and some people dislike.
Are you saying organizations championed by EA like Against Malaria Foundation, GiveDirectly, Food fortification initiative are delivering poor results? Are you saying that donations across the world are delivering poor results? Can you please clarify? And what is the extra baggage?
I don’t know why you say the intentions never match the results.
SBF is one EA financier who did shady things (I think, not really that informed on him). Elon kind of likes EA and does things that some people like and some people dislike.
Are you saying organizations championed by EA like Against Malaria Foundation, GiveDirectly, Food fortification initiative are delivering poor results? Are you saying that donations across the world are delivering poor results? Can you please clarify? And what is the extra baggage?
Effective altruism is a very shallow philosophy. There are far too many flaws to list out in a comment but to state a few…
1) Like all utilitarian systems, it relies on a different ethical system to define “good.” To ask what does the greatest good requires one to define what is good, and if the answer is whatever does the greatest good, the answer is tautological and based on circular reasoning.
2) Because it deals with all potential future outcomes, any valuation is either arbitrary or meaningless. The value of prognostication drops off rapidly after the near term, so any probability of something happening in 4450 AD is completely meaningless, yet if I can project some small percentage of something happening to a 100 billion people then, I can arbitrarily value it higher than near certain things happening today.
3) Again, like all utilitarian systems, it tries to quantify inherently unquantifiable aspects of life. People are motivated to change into a vision of what they deem would be the good life (being a member of a loving family, feeling satisfied by the work they do, being a valued member of a community etc.), hopefully informed by a deep tradition and not just their own appetites. Ultimately this is something experienced through embodied knowledge and embodied conjecture. Even trying to quantify it misses the point, like trying to quantify what it is to have a rich conversation.
Your critiques of the utilitarian basis of EA are sound as critiques of the whole movement. Your point 2) is only a (to my mind devastating) critique of long-termism, but long-termism is not coextensive with EA.
Your critiques of the utilitarian basis of EA are sound as critiques of the whole movement. Your point 2) is only a (to my mind devastating) critique of long-termism, but long-termism is not coextensive with EA.
Interesting response, thank you. In my view the article is useful in drawing attention to the use of the EA movement by power players hiding behind an altruistic smoke screen. An entirely human phenomenon, observable in the behaviour of high priests since the beginning of time.
What about this for an observation. Grand theories always tend to be cloaked in an argument that they’re good, but have an observable historical track record of causing a great deal of death and destruction, precisely because they allow power players room to operate.
People who who operate on a human scale, focussing on their families, helping the people they see in front of them, staying away from navel gazing over the meaning of life but giving it some meaning every day in practical ways, tend not to generate genocide.
The argument against the idea that people in Africa, or millions not yet born, should be as important as my family or my neighbours is therefore not theoretical it is empirical. Reducing human beings to concepts, rather than people with names and faces that you recognise, has led to their mistreatment so many times throughout history it should be a lesson.
Excellent response. The callousness that is bound to result from EA is on full display in the climate extremists who are preventing people getting to hospital, taking children to school, going to work, visiting the sick – all of whom are apparently expendable in their worldview.
Excellent response. The callousness that is bound to result from EA is on full display in the climate extremists who are preventing people getting to hospital, taking children to school, going to work, visiting the sick – all of whom are apparently expendable in their worldview.
So what would you say the reason that the intentions never seem to match the results and these projects always seem to have extra baggage that no one asked for is?
Effective altruism is a very shallow philosophy. There are far too many flaws to list out in a comment but to state a few…
1) Like all utilitarian systems, it relies on a different ethical system to define “good.” To ask what does the greatest good requires one to define what is good, and if the answer is whatever does the greatest good, the answer is tautological and based on circular reasoning.
2) Because it deals with all potential future outcomes, any valuation is either arbitrary or meaningless. The value of prognostication drops off rapidly after the near term, so any probability of something happening in 4450 AD is completely meaningless, yet if I can project some small percentage of something happening to a 100 billion people then, I can arbitrarily value it higher than near certain things happening today.
3) Again, like all utilitarian systems, it tries to quantify inherently unquantifiable aspects of life. People are motivated to change into a vision of what they deem would be the good life (being a member of a loving family, feeling satisfied by the work they do, being a valued member of a community etc.), hopefully informed by a deep tradition and not just their own appetites. Ultimately this is something experienced through embodied knowledge and embodied conjecture. Even trying to quantify it misses the point, like trying to quantify what it is to have a rich conversation.
Interesting response, thank you. In my view the article is useful in drawing attention to the use of the EA movement by power players hiding behind an altruistic smoke screen. An entirely human phenomenon, observable in the behaviour of high priests since the beginning of time.
What about this for an observation. Grand theories always tend to be cloaked in an argument that they’re good, but have an observable historical track record of causing a great deal of death and destruction, precisely because they allow power players room to operate.
People who who operate on a human scale, focussing on their families, helping the people they see in front of them, staying away from navel gazing over the meaning of life but giving it some meaning every day in practical ways, tend not to generate genocide.
The argument against the idea that people in Africa, or millions not yet born, should be as important as my family or my neighbours is therefore not theoretical it is empirical. Reducing human beings to concepts, rather than people with names and faces that you recognise, has led to their mistreatment so many times throughout history it should be a lesson.
Wow this article is just one large smear piece. I really would not expect this from the author who I respected for consistently shining light on the counter-narrative to the origin of Covid. This article disappoints me.
Firstly, as I have commented in a previous article Effective Altruism (EA) is quite a large and diverse movement. Yes, it might lean-liberal and speak to issues that concern university-educated people but many people within it actually try very hard to identify its biases and correct them.
It is not a cult because some famous tech people identify with some of it’s causes. It’s an attempt to think about how one does good. This is very reasonable as indeed some charitable interventions are better than others.
Peter Singer’s argument about the drowning child does not lead one to eugenicist views of killing disabled babies. These are two separate arguments that he has made. You might hate him for the second one but that does not negate the first one. Debate the first one on its merits or that is just a smear, like saying the lab-leak theory is being promoted by people with racist/anti-Semitic views so it must just be dismissed.
The philosophy does not claim its morally bad to slave away in a job that’s useful. It argues one can do various different things and one should consider how they can have the biggest impact. Yes, it does say some very smart people may not have a significantly marginal impact on a given cause if they just did volunteer work that doesn’t utilize their brainy advantage. So instead one might earn to give. That is controversial and may give cover to tax avoidance as stated in the article but this is definitely not the only recommendation made. One also might build tech company or engineering companies that tackle the issues one cares about. Fintech startups like Wave in Kenya have been built by EA-aligned people trying to increase financial inclusion in Africa to create sustainable ways of dealing with poverty.
Social work opportunities and charity work are encouragd by EA. Members of the CEA, the admin body of the movement has a number of social workers. It’s just not for everybody. Again, this isn’t a very reasonable assertion.
It does ignore economic inequality but I also think that saying this is a cover to tiptoe around billionaires is harsh. Libertarians also couldn’t care less about inequality. An argument for EA (not the only one) is that inequality is not bad in itself. The fact that I am a well-off South African does not make people in Kenya, Zambia, Mozambique or even South Africa any poorer nor should that be why we care about people who live in absolute poverty. We should care about people because they are living in absolute deprivation. So a poor person in Europe who has most of their survival needs taken care of should be prioritized below a poor person in Mozambique who doesn’t. Again, this is debatable. One might think it is a bad to break that connection with those one lives around. But then debate this on its merits not just give the most uncharitable interpretation of the view.
The faults of SBF, Bill Gates, Bezos, Zuckers and the rest raised in this article may be valid. But the smear on a movement/philosophy followed by middle class people who just want to Ben smarter about how they do good is unnecessary. This smear has forced me to take issue with the article.