While I respect shrimp welfare advocates, there's a bit of me that has never moved on from malaria nets as the champion Most Deserving Cause. Call it human chauvinism if you will. I also think if you ran the exact same standard EA argument (ie "do good as efficiently as possible") but defended bednets rather than shrimp, it would be much less controversial in general.
I relate, and still give a lot to global health and welfare causes. There's definitely a spectrum between EA causes that I'm most confident do a large amount of good, and the moonshots that require more assumptions but have the potential to do exponentially more good. Personally, I need a bit of both in my giving portfolio.
EA would definitely be less controversial and less easily mocked if it focused solely on the bednets and cash transfers - but chasing social consensus is not what it's all about, and I think that weirdness is something to be proud of that's essential to the movement's insights.
This is why Givewell is so great! It's much easier to just give money to them and let them work it out. I trust those guys to know what they're doing.
On defanging EA critics - it's important to realise that 99% of people who ask "why are you giving money to X rather than Y?" themselves give money to neither. Given that the question is so rarely asked in good faith I question the value of good-faith engagement with the criticism.
While I respect shrimp welfare advocates, there's a bit of me that has never moved on from malaria nets as the champion Most Deserving Cause. Call it human chauvinism if you will. I also think if you ran the exact same standard EA argument (ie "do good as efficiently as possible") but defended bednets rather than shrimp, it would be much less controversial in general.
I relate, and still give a lot to global health and welfare causes. There's definitely a spectrum between EA causes that I'm most confident do a large amount of good, and the moonshots that require more assumptions but have the potential to do exponentially more good. Personally, I need a bit of both in my giving portfolio.
EA would definitely be less controversial and less easily mocked if it focused solely on the bednets and cash transfers - but chasing social consensus is not what it's all about, and I think that weirdness is something to be proud of that's essential to the movement's insights.
This is why Givewell is so great! It's much easier to just give money to them and let them work it out. I trust those guys to know what they're doing.
On defanging EA critics - it's important to realise that 99% of people who ask "why are you giving money to X rather than Y?" themselves give money to neither. Given that the question is so rarely asked in good faith I question the value of good-faith engagement with the criticism.