I don't know if there is a faster way to make me not take anything you have to say seriously than if you are a proponent of effective altruism. EA seems to solely exist to help rich people justify...
I don't know if there is a faster way to make me not take anything you have to say seriously than if you are a proponent of effective altruism. EA seems to solely exist to help rich people justify being rich in a world with extreme income inequality and poverty.
I don't want to trust someone to get rich and spend their money to help the world (how well did that work with SBF?). I want a world where it is impossible to become a billionaire in the first place and everyone is able to live their lives healthy, safely and however they wish within reason.
To me there’s a difference between effective altruism (focus on giving to effective, high-impact charities) and Effective Altruism (what you describe). I’d never heard of the latter being a...
To me there’s a difference between effective altruism (focus on giving to effective, high-impact charities) and Effective Altruism (what you describe). I’d never heard of the latter being a definition of EA until I came to Tildes.
I’ll borrow a definition from the nuclear sector: How does this relate to effective altruism? Silicon Valley folks tend to be early adopters of a lot of things/ideas, and EA is one of them. As...
I’ll borrow a definition from the nuclear sector:
Risk = frequency (or probability) x consequences
How does this relate to effective altruism? Silicon Valley folks tend to be early adopters of a lot of things/ideas, and EA is one of them. As artificial intelligence became more prominent in the tech sector, folks made the calculation that AI risk = (20-99%) x BAD = a very high risk of an AI catastrophe. Basically, they assumed the risk of an AI catastrophe was very high, potentially risking billions or trillions of future lives, or all of humanity. With those stakes, it’s very easy to justify doing anything to stop it (including donating a lot of money to AI safety charities). Personally, I think the probability is much lower, and that the bed nets are a more effective charitable contribution.
The whole "obviously we must invest our millions into AI" outcome is absolutely one of my reasons for disliking "EA" vs the concept of donating to charities that are effective in their use of...
The whole "obviously we must invest our millions into AI" outcome is absolutely one of my reasons for disliking "EA" vs the concept of donating to charities that are effective in their use of money like you describe. The former has absolutely poisoned the well for me against the use of the term for the latter. That and the idea that they're worth too much to volunteer their time as much as their money.
Like for example, the No One Dies Alone program, where the local hospital calls if they have someone with no family or family who cannot make it to the bedside so that people receiving hospice/end of life care aren't alone. The idea that this is not a worthwhile use of time because it's inefficient is pretty anathema to my sense of human dignity and respect (and to connect to the article, it's pretty much entirely unrelated to my feelings about non-human animals). It may certainly not be in someone's skill set, but I think that's why I don't trust the people reducing this down to a math equation to make those judgements about worth and value vs engaging with something they care about.
Like I found a post arguing about the dollar equivalent of donating blood and that since it's very likely someone else will donate, it's a waste of their time/resources. Like, that's certainly not an argument that can be universalized - it becomes the bystander effect for an entire population.
Idk that's why I don't like it as someone on the left.
I would agree with your assumption and that AI is over blown as they need to keep selling it to us to justify all of the money they keep setting on fire. This would be one example of an issue I...
I would agree with your assumption and that AI is over blown as they need to keep selling it to us to justify all of the money they keep setting on fire. This would be one example of an issue I have with a fundamental part of EA. That it is better for them to make a ton of money and hire 1000 doctors than to become a doctor themselves. Out of touch billionaires tend to not be the best judge of how to spend their money to help people.
The reason it might seem this way is that donating money to charity is largely a rich-people problem and if you don't have a lot of money yourself, advising people who do have money is a great way...
The reason it might seem this way is that donating money to charity is largely a rich-people problem and if you don't have a lot of money yourself, advising people who do have money is a great way to have more impact.
That's a characteristic of the nature of charity work rather than EA in particular. Charitable foundations are started by rich people and young people interested in charity might go work for them.
That's also true of government and business: you can control or influence the spending of money that's not yours.
It's like the story of what a famous bank robber said when asked why he robbed banks: "that's where the money is."
It's also possible to raise money from small donations, but it's a lot more work. Politicians will do it to avoid accusations of being funded by the rich.
I think the "earn to give" stuff is misunderstood. Realistically, a lot of people who set out to be software engineers or whatever aren't going to quit their jobs and go to work at a low-paying job that supposedly does more good. And it might not be a good idea anyway if it's not what they're good at.
Perhaps giving money to charity is second-best, but it beats not doing it.
Justifying inequality is not what EA is about. It's about being practical. We can imagine a very different world, but it's not very relevant when you're deciding what to do in this world. If you're trying to get things done, putting "first, let's have a revolution" as step one of your plan means you never get to step two.
I'll also point out that convincing rich people to give money to poor people is working against inequality. It's not enough to prevent inequality because the forces working in the other direction are very strong. But it will matter a lot to the people it helps.
Can you provide some reason, any reason at all, to think this is true? The idea is that if we are to give to charity, we should try to maximize the positive impact of that donation, which seems...
EA seems to solely exist to help rich people justify being rich in a world with extreme income inequality and poverty.
Can you provide some reason, any reason at all, to think this is true? The idea is that if we are to give to charity, we should try to maximize the positive impact of that donation, which seems like that's a good idea.
I want a world where it is impossible to become a billionaire in the first place and everyone is able to live their lives healthy, safely and however they wish within reason.
I'm not sure why one would think that'd be incompatible with effective altruism.
So I'm confused on how this inference works. We have this fact (that I agree with) that: How does that give us a reason to think that EA solely exists to help rich people justify being rich in a...
So I'm confused on how this inference works. We have this fact (that I agree with) that:
Sam Bankman-Fried and the network around him tried to convince us he is a genius.
How does that give us a reason to think that EA solely exists to help rich people justify being rich in a world with extreme income inequality and poverty? How does this inference work, what kind of inference is this? How do we move from understanding a fact we are in agreement about to your conclusion which I deny?
Because it was used to justify his reckless spending before his massive financial crime was exposed. EA is good in theory, but millionaires and billionaires rarely show a true desire to help...
Because it was used to justify his reckless spending before his massive financial crime was exposed.
EA is good in theory, but millionaires and billionaires rarely show a true desire to help people, as those qualities rarely go hand in hand with what is needed to become a billionaire.
So it sounds like you have beliefs that work like this: "If X is used as a pretext for bad people to do something bad, then X solely exists for bad people to justify their bad behavior." I feel...
So it sounds like you have beliefs that work like this:
"If X is used as a pretext for bad people to do something bad, then X solely exists for bad people to justify their bad behavior."
I feel that this kind of inference is neither sound nor cogent. It neither entails nor even raises the probably of the conclusion.
There is a difference between effective altruism and Effective Altruism. The main thrust of Effective Altruism is basically: if you have the capacity to acquire capital efficiently, then you...
There is a difference between effective altruism and Effective Altruism. The main thrust of Effective Altruism is basically: if you have the capacity to acquire capital efficiently, then you should stop being good, and acquire as much capital as possible, which you then use to pay other people to be good on your behalf. Eg. Malaria nets, which is where this line of reasoning begins but it gets derailed immediately because:
The other weird prong of EA is longtermism which is tied in somewhat closely with the kind of stupid found on lesswrong.
Longtermism is basically, we can do more to help net global happiness by accelerating AGI than we could spending those resources in reducing present suffering because future humans have equal moral weight as current humans.
So the two dovetail in this incestuous way: the best and most moral thing to do is to acquire capital, and shockingly the most moral way to spend that capital is on my hobbies rather than actual real world present day suffering alleviation.
I’m not sure if you are familiar with this movement, but check out the writing of Will MacAskill if not.
From the about page, this is a blog of a bachelors in philosophy graduate who writes articles about how much they dislike woke, lefty, Bluesky people. I've noticed an uptick of these kind of posts...
Exemplary
From the about page, this is a blog of a bachelors in philosophy graduate who writes articles about how much they dislike woke, lefty, Bluesky people.
I've noticed an uptick of these kind of posts lately. I guess the broad genre is 'Angry Opinion Pieces', but the comments are much more fight-y than I'm used to on Tildes and I'd rather not see them. I've found filtering them nearly impossible.
The authors aren't prominent, and are varied, so I can't create a filter as it's not just one person. It's generally Some Random Guy Who Thinks Lefties Are Dumb, but there'll be an appeal towards authority for why they're actually an expert in making this particular dunk post
The source seems 'legit', or at least, it's possible something interesting might be posted from the source (in this example, Substack, but there are other less shady ones).
The topic sounds like a real thing, but reading the article it boils down to Twitter-style infighting, often about topics that require deep Twitter knowledge to understand the background of the debate. These blog posts aren't educating me on anything that I think is actually impactful. It feels like clickbait, because the title is written quite broad, then the 'article' is mostly highlighting people they think are stupid, usually through embedded tweets.
The comments on Tildes tend to be the submitter arguing why the submission is actually good, and why people are reading it wrong, like this example.
Does anyone have an idea for a topic filter that'll help cut down on these surfacing? I don't want to unsubscribe from ~society as there's a ton of thought provoking and interesting stuff in there, but I'm tired of 'Here Is My Detailed Argument About Why Lefty Online People Are Wrong About [whatever], And If You Disagree, YOU ARE ONE AND YOU ARE WRONG'
Back on old old reddit /r/videos put a 'YouTube Drama' tag, and that helped. These articles all feel like Twitter Drama, but I don't want to put the onus of a new tag on the taggers. I also doubt the submitters of these blog posts would categorise them the same way I do
I'm sincerely asking for help with setting up my filters here, not being tongue-in-cheek.
I don't get what you mean by great timing? Or fucking lol? Any of this? It doesn't make sense as a response to the comment? It feels like you're responding in a "sick burn!" way
I don't get what you mean by great timing? Or fucking lol? Any of this? It doesn't make sense as a response to the comment?
It feels like you're responding in a "sick burn!" way
Structurally, a problem with articles like this is that they are responding to bad takes on the Internet. There is an infinite supply of bad takes on the Internet. Most of us don't care about them...
Structurally, a problem with articles like this is that they are responding to bad takes on the Internet.
There is an infinite supply of bad takes on the Internet. Most of us don't care about them because we haven't read them, and often we have never heard of the people who wrote them, even if they're celebrities in some circles.
I think it's fine if you are inspired to write by bad takes on the Internet. That often motivates me too! But maybe the response should be more indirect? You could explain how something works that a lot of people don't seem to know.
I was thinking the same thing. This article feels very inside baseball, so to speak. I agree with @RNG that a few people here are making the sort of strawman arguments against veganism/effective...
I was thinking the same thing. This article feels very inside baseball, so to speak. I agree with @RNG that a few people here are making the sort of strawman arguments against veganism/effective altruism that the author rallies against, but on the other hand, the author isn't making a positive case for veganism or effective altruism in this blog post, either. It's really just a rant. Which is fine, of course, but that doesn't leave much substance to actually critique.
(edit) (just as a heads up, since I feel that the fact that top level responses are sent to one's inbox can seem aggressive, I'm not attacking you. Please understand that I'm slinging digital ink...
(edit) (just as a heads up, since I feel that the fact that top level responses are sent to one's inbox can seem aggressive, I'm not attacking you. Please understand that I'm slinging digital ink at Mr. Bulldog, and at the general concepts at play for discussion)
In wealthy countries, almost everyone could go vegan if they so chose.
Nah. I'll put as much effort into my rebuttal as this blogger did into their research ❤️
Vaguely, the argument: "Poor people are making me feel sad for making a lot of money, then donating a portion of it (for tax receipts). They need to stop hurting my feelings, or I'll stop building [1] hospitals!!"
Ooh, thank you Mr. Bulldog! That was my argument, actually: effective altruism inherently requires [2] wealth disparity, and a dysfunctional democracy, to function. It's a moral philosophy that can only exist by ceding power to the 1% of people who have sufficient wealth to make choices for the unwashed masses. Hypothetically, in a democracy, we all get one vote about how our collective country's resources are spent -- but when you hoard cash, and dole out a pittance of it for posterity, you're kinda expending 107 billion votes to my one. But I guess I should be thanking my abuser for pulling one punch out of ten?
[1]: "I" and "building" are used loosely, since the occasion is rare that an EA-enthusiast physically performs labour, given that useless occupations such as construction worker or volunteer are opportunity cost sinkholes. Obviously.
[2]: _In_effective altruism is the one where Sarah McLauchlin convinces your mom to donate one dollar to a sad puppy, taking a year to raise what Jeff Bezos makes in roughly half a day's "work".
I'm not sure why (or even if) you think food deserts falsify the claim linked. If you do, you didn't provide any reason to think this is the case. If I'm reading the comment correctly, it seems...
Nah. I'll put as much effort into my rebuttal as this blogger did into their research ❤️
I'm not sure why (or even if) you think food deserts falsify the claim linked. If you do, you didn't provide any reason to think this is the case. If I'm reading the comment correctly, it seems like you felt the article was low effort and in turn your response was low effort, which if it were me would be a good reason to think that maybe I shouldn't have posted the reply.
Vaguely, the argument: "Poor people are making me feel sad for making a lot of money, then donating a portion of it (for tax receipts). They need to stop hurting my feelings, or I'll stop building [1] hospitals!!"
This wasn't the argument; respectfully I don't think a sincere effort to honestly engage with the substance of the article was put forward.
np; I'll break down the argument a smidge for ya. The first paragraph does a decent job explaining why I can barely read this: This intro paragraph uses three rhetorical tricks in order to lend...
Exemplary
I'm not sure why (or even if) you think food deserts falsify the claim linked.
np; I'll break down the argument a smidge for ya. The first paragraph does a decent job explaining why I can barely read this:
A common talking point from leftists whenever veganism comes up is that veganism is white and privileged. These leftists see nothing wrong with eating the flesh of tortured innocent animals who didn’t want to die. What they find really objectionable is if you suggest that people should stop eating animals in a way that sets off their privilege alarm (a highly delicate instrument, never too far from going off). Similarly, the woke love to snipe at effective altruism as being white, privileged, neglecting colonialism, or whatever else the complaint of the month is.
This intro paragraph uses three rhetorical tricks in order to lend credence to a poor argument:
They group "leftists" into a monolith, in order to attack the group as a whole without addressing several of their underlying concerns (i.e. food deserts exist, so gaining access to vegan meals to begin with is difficult),
They then create a straw man argument to knock over: leftists (now addressed as a singular whole), are hypocritical ("nothing is wrong with eating the flesh of tortured innocent animals") and anti-white (you've got eyes and can see this XD),
Now that you've established your enemy as stupid, pivot to giving them another argument you want them to lose -- namely, that effective altruism is bad.
As a result, your readers get the impression that "the leftists" are a bunch of dumb people (since they argue against something as obviously wholesome as veganism), so now their arguments against effective altruism must been examined with the undertone that they're incapable of reason.
The author does this again, actually!
If you talk about veganism, you will inevitably get many complaints from leftists. They will point out that indigenous people eat animals sometimes and claim that not everyone can afford to go vegan—even though the cheapest vegan food is much cheaper than the cheapest non-vegan food. Though they eat meat for trivial pleasure, they seem to have much more to say about those who are overzealous in condemnation of the meat industry than about the industry itself.
Genuinely in my time on this great planet I have never seen a flesh and blood, real, actual living human being make this argument. I assume someone has -- eight billion people and all that -- but this is truly the strawest of strawman arguments. This is the freaking 21st century; the noble savage stereotype needs to die.
I can keep going about analyzing the article if you'd like? It's pretty much slop tbh but it's always useful to hone my literary criticism blade, so to speak. One lens I like to use for analysis like this -- which I learned from the Less Wrong forums many moons ago! -- is Schopenhauer's 38 Stratagems, or 38 Ways to Win an Argument. It's a pretty succinct list of how to be rhetorically dishonest and seem convincing!
This wasn't the argument; respectfully I don't think a sincere effort to honestly engage with the substance of the article was put forward.
Respectfully, disagreed. I'm responding to this subsection of the author's rant:
And we’ve been amazingly successful. Hundreds of thousands of children live because of effective altruists. Hundreds of millions of chickens have been spared from a cage every single year. The future is in safer hands because of the actions of EAs. And yet these spectacular, overwhelming successes are wholly ignored by the leftist critics, who prefer to make narrow ideological complaints about how EAs talk or supposed bits of EA ideology that are inessential to the core things EAs advocate.
[...]
EAs are out there giving big portions of their money to effective charities to save the lives of children. And their critics, from within the comfort of their Marxist reading groups, talk endlessly and achieve nothing. Yet they have the nerve to lecture us about our behavior. What have the EA critics achieved that can hold a candle to the good that EAs do routinely? What has all this highfalutin theory achieved?
The unspoken subtext is that we should be grateful to the rich people, exploiting systems that they perpetuate, tossing fat wads down at us. Wait, no, sorry that's actually in the text nvm:
If you criticize something that has been overwhelmingly good, then your commentary shouldn’t be exclusively critical.
[...]
We all fall short of doing as much good as we can. That’s a normal, human thing. But when you throw sand in the faces of those who consciously aim to do a lot of good, that is pathological.
In conclusion, like, I don't know what the actual substance of the article is, so it's difficult to engage with it. Roughly I think the author's reasoning goes like this:
Lefty people all universally have a bad take on veganism, which is that it's bad (?) because the Indians use all of the animal, and Indians are good.
Because this is wrong, all Lefty People takes are also wrong,
One of their takes is that effective altruism is bad, but because they're all poor and marxists and elitists, they've accomplished nothing. Proving that effective atruism is good!
But that's ... not an argument. Or at least, it's barely worth engaging in. This feels like commenting on a tumblr post.
So to address this, many leftists are effective altruists. The critique is aimed at leftists who provide awful critiques of veganism and effective altruism. This is a subset of leftists. And even...
They group "leftists" into a monolith, in order to attack the group as a whole without addressing several of their underlying concerns (i.e. food deserts exist, so gaining access to vegan meals to begin with is difficult),
They then create a straw man argument to knock over: leftists (now addressed as a singular whole), are hypocritical ("nothing is wrong with eating the flesh of tortured innocent animals") and anti-white (you've got eyes and can see this XD),
Now that you've established your enemy as stupid, pivot to giving them another argument you want them to lose -- namely, that effective altruism is bad.
As a result, your readers get the impression that "the leftists" are a bunch of dumb people (since they argue against something as obviously wholesome as veganism), so now their arguments against effective altruism must been examined with the undertone that they're incapable of reason.
So to address this, many leftists are effective altruists. The critique is aimed at leftists who provide awful critiques of veganism and effective altruism. This is a subset of leftists. And even non-EA leftist vegans constantly criticize leftists who are okay with paying for factory farmed animals, look at any leftist vegan online space.
Genuinely in my time on this great planet I have never seen a flesh and blood, real, actual living human being make this argument. I assume someone has -- eight billion people and all that -- but this is truly the strawest of strawman arguments.
I've seen this take constantly, primarily from white liberals, defending their financial support of factory farming. Also the article linked an example of someone making this exact argument...
Lefty people all universally have a bad take on veganism, which is that it's bad (?) because the Indians use all of the animal, and Indians are good.
The first clause is false for reasons I addressed. I can't even make sense of what the second clause is trying to say in the present context.
Because this is wrong, all Lefty People takes are also wrong
Can you link literally anything from the article you just read that could even possibly imply this?
One of their takes is that effective altruism is bad, but because they're all poor and marxists and elitists, they've accomplished nothing. Proving that effective atruism is good!
I'm not even sure there's anything to say about this one...
Could you quote a part of the article which indicates that it's aimed at only "leftists who provide awful critiques of veganism and effective altruism"? From my read, the author very clearly...
So to address this, many leftists are effective altruists. The critique is aimed at leftists who provide awful critiques of veganism and effective altruism. This is a subset of leftists. And even non-EA leftist vegans constantly criticize leftists who are okay with paying for factory farmed animals, look at any leftist vegan online space.
Could you quote a part of the article which indicates that it's aimed at only "leftists who provide awful critiques of veganism and effective altruism"? From my read, the author very clearly delineates between "leftists" and "Effective Altruists", and never states that there's an overlap. Maybe their other works are more precise in their wording, but I'm unfamiliar with the authorship of Mr. Bulldog?
I've seen this take constantly, primarily from white liberals, defending their financial support of factory farming. Also the article linked an example of someone making this exact argument...
Eight billion people. Because this is the Internet, I can find you a person who genuinely believes with their whole heart that the Earth is sealed under a clear dome and flies through space as our little blue disc. I'll be more specific: in the thousands of people I run into IRL -- sometimes in spaces populated very heavily by people in vegan/animal rights circles -- I have never met a single soul who pushed the rhetoric that Mr. Bulldog dug up.
Can you link literally anything from the article you just read that could even possibly imply this?
I ... literally did. That's why we're discussing the first paragraph, which creates a false equivalence between the "leftists against veganism" argument and the "leftists against effective altruism" argument. I suppose to quote it again:
(emphasis mine)
A common talking point from leftists whenever veganism comes up is that veganism is white and privileged. These leftists see nothing wrong with eating the flesh of tortured innocent animals who didn’t want to die. What they find really objectionable is if you suggest that people should stop eating animals in a way that sets off their privilege alarm (a highly delicate instrument, never too far from going off). Similarly, the woke love to snipe at effective altruism as being white, privileged, neglecting colonialism, or whatever else the complaint of the month is.
The author creates a false narrative about leftists and veganism, somehow, and then links it to their argumentation against effective altruism. Which as I noted in my lead comment, is completely different to my primary argument against it: if you're so fabulously wealthy that you can donate large sums of money to vanity charity projects, the system is broken and you are behaving inherently undemocraticly. Hey, it can be effective, idc, but it seems that the truly most effective altruism would be donating towards groups that are attempting to end the systems which make it effective to start with.
I'm not even sure there's anything to say about this one...
Hey what the heck, I'll quote the article at you:
(emphasis mine)
And their critics, from within the comfort of their Marxist reading groups, talk endlessly and achieve nothing. Yet they have the nerve to lecture us about our behavior. What have the EA critics achieved that can hold a candle to the good that EAs do routinely? What has all this highfalutin theory achieved?
And to be clear, and break down my jokey tone a bit:
"they're all poor" -> if they were rich, they could be effective altruists; alas the common folks must descend into marxism
"marxists" -> literally in the text
"elitists" -> if 'highfalutin theory' isn't anything less than a sideways glance at anti-elitism rhetoric, I don't know what to believe.
The lack of the word "all" prior to using the term? There are obviously vegan and EA leftists that Matthew Adelstein (the author) is aware of, is friends with, and has co-written with. Maybe I'm...
Could you quote a part of the article which indicates that it's aimed at only "leftists who provide awful critiques of veganism and effective altruism"? From my read, the author very clearly delineates between "leftists" and "Effective Altruists", and never states that there's an overlap. Maybe their other works are more precise in their wording, but I'm unfamiliar with the authorship of Mr. Bulldog?
The lack of the word "all" prior to using the term? There are obviously vegan and EA leftists that Matthew Adelstein (the author) is aware of, is friends with, and has co-written with. Maybe I'm biased from knowing the author in question, but he never said anywhere that this criticism is exclusively from leftists and constitutes what all leftists say. Obviously the biggest opponents of vegan causes are conservatives, but they are less hypocritical in their responses, as they are mask-off ghouls on all of their positions.
Eight billion people. Because this is the Internet, I can find you a person who genuinely believes with their whole heart that the Earth is sealed under a clear dome and flies through space as our little blue disc. I'll be more specific: in the thousands of people I run into IRL -- sometimes in spaces populated very heavily by people in vegan/animal rights circles -- I have never met a single soul who pushed the rhetoric that Mr. Bulldog dug up.
Are you a vegan? Have you ever advocated publicly for the welfare of the animals we brutalize on factory farms? I promise you, this is in the rotation of mindless criticisms aimed at vegans. I've heard this argument constantly, including from a real life leftist friend.
I ... literally did. That's why we're discussing the first paragraph, which creates a false equivalence between the "leftists against veganism" argument and the "leftists against effective altruism" argument.
The claim I was looking for some backing for was "Because this [Lefty people all universally have a bad take on veganism] is wrong, all Lefty People takes are also wrong". Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not sure how what you stated substantiated this claim. The charitable reading of your comment is that Adelstein is moving from "anti-vegan leftists are wrong about veganism" to "anti-EA leftists are wrong about EA" which I wouldn't find as objectionable as the original claim.
you can donate large sums of money to vanity charity projects, the system is broken and you are behaving inherently undemocraticly. Hey, it can be effective, idc
First, we can care about more than one thing at a time, and if you care about donating to charity at all, it seems good to care about your contributions being effective and high-impact.
it seems that the truly most effective altruism would be donating towards groups that are attempting to end the systems which make it effective to start with.
Like a Marxist revolutionary party or something? Are we not allowed to participate in charitable giving unless it is to The Correct Leftist Revolutionary Movement™ (which is, incidentally, incompatible with all other leftist revolutionary projects). I don't think we have a good reason to think there's a project like this that just a little bit of funding away from transforming the lives of the global south, the working class, and factory farmed animals, such that in expectation it does the most good to donate to them.
Fair enough! As noted, I'm completely unaware of the author's other works, so all I have to go off of are his linked words. Typically I'd assume that a professional (?) writer would make clear...
The lack of the word "all" prior to using the term? There are obviously vegan and EA leftists that Matthew Adelstein (the author) is aware of, is friends with, and has co-written with. Maybe I'm biased from knowing the author in question, but he never said anywhere that this criticism is exclusively from leftists and constitutes what all leftists say. Obviously the biggest opponents of vegan causes are conservatives, but they are less hypocritical in their responses, as they are mask-off ghouls on all of their positions.
Fair enough! As noted, I'm completely unaware of the author's other works, so all I have to go off of are his linked words. Typically I'd assume that a professional (?) writer would make clear that distinction, but I guess it's super implicit to everyone else.
Are you a vegan?
If you put a gun to my head, yep! I don't like to associate in groups, but since you're asking me a direct question, I lean further into that one that out of it. I repeatedly fail -- especially when my favourite restaurant slips ham into their tofu sandwiches (>:|) -- but I do all the vegan things (avoid meat and animal byproducts, leather, etc.). This is transgressive, but I extend forgiveness to myself (and others!) when I screw up or have to pause for a moment due to health issues (it's effectively impossible in my area to get cost effective, prepared, vegan meals, so it's oatmeal for every meal otherwise). That also goes for any prepared food with sugar as a listed ingredient, since it'll often use bone char, and eliminating everything that has not been marked with the big 'ol V is outside of my budget. Then there's veganic farming, which is not even in the same postal code as my budget!
Feel free to call me whatever you'd like, however! I've almost certainly been called worse.
The charitable reading of your comment is that Adelstein is moving from "anti-vegan leftists are wrong about veganism" to "anti-EA leftists are wrong about EA" which I wouldn't find as objectionable as the original claim.
Thank you for reading my comment charitably; I hope that we are both doing the same! I was being hyperbolic to make a point, as I felt that Mr. Bulldog (Adelstein?) was equally exaggerating his points for effect. I do not think you dense, fwiw, I just expect that I'm making unexpected arguments -- coated in a crunchy layer of sarcasm, which never helps with comprehension -- and that's likely hindering our ability to communicate.
First, we can care about more than one thing at a time, and if you care about donating to charity at all, it seems good to care about your contributions being effective and high-impact.
[...]
Like a Marxist revolutionary party or something? Are we not allowed to participate in charitable giving unless it is to The Correct Leftist Revolutionary Movement™ (which is, incidentally, incompatible with all other leftist revolutionary projects). I don't think we have a good reason to think there's a project like this that just a little bit of funding away from transforming the lives of the global south, the working class, and factory farmed animals, such that in expectation it does the most good to donate to them.
I dunno! I'm neither rich enough to be an Effective Altruist, nor a marxist, or a leftist! I'm just sitting on the sidelines musing about how a movement that promotes "using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible" -- as depicted in this article, I am really not into this subculture, so maybe you can dig up some alternate views -- apparently doesn't expend effort dismantling the institutions which gave them inequal power and influence to start with. It's terribly fascinating. The implicit conclusion seems to be that the Effective Altruists' perspectives' are superior, since the alternative would be giving the power of self-direction (i.e. shitloads of money) to the rest of us, which per their stated philosophy must mean that doing so is a globally inferior alternative than deciding for them?
But yeah these are just the musings of a spectator; as an individual without a large stake in this, I'm mostly going to be swept by the wayside anyhow, so I'm just enjoying the show.
That's sufficient to identify as a vegan in my book. I don't think it's always practicable to tell if the sugar in some treat was made with bone char, but it's easy not to buy chicken nuggies or...
If you put a gun to my head, yep! I don't like to associate in groups, but since you're asking me a direct question, I lean further into that one that out of it.
That's sufficient to identify as a vegan in my book. I don't think it's always practicable to tell if the sugar in some treat was made with bone char, but it's easy not to buy chicken nuggies or buy cows' milk. By the way, this wasn't intended to be a purity test or anything, it's just my opinion that most who defend animal rights online hear the same arguments over and over again (crop deaths, too expensive, it doesn't make a difference, plants feel pain, it's racist/colonialist, food deserts, it tastes good, etc.) I'd just be surprised if anyone who has spoken up for animal rights hadn't heard it, but maybe you haven't made a concerted effort to argue with folks online.
I sincerely thank you for taking steps to reduce your contributions to animal agriculture. People who are making a concerted effort to reduce animal consumption are making a significant impact on both reducing demand for animal products and normalizing animal-free diets.
(it's effectively impossible in my area to get cost effective, prepared, vegan meals, so it's oatmeal for every meal otherwise)
I know this isn't the point of the discussion, but I am more than willing to send you some of my favorite meal prep recipes! They are super cheap, and can cook a lot of food at a time (like a weeks worth of lunches.) I recommend an InstantPot for convenience or just a rice cooker otherwise, as there's tons of options that open up for low-cost meal prep. One of my favorites is this fried rice recipe:
1 cup rinsed white rice
1.25 cup mixed veggies (usually come in 1.25 cup-sized bags for less than a buck)
.5 cup shelled edamame
1.5 cups of water
(optionally add some garlic or other spices)
Store in fridge. I like frying up leftovers in a pan with soy sauce and sesame oil if I have time! Optionally add some tofu or other vegan protein alternative (I like Just Egg), but that's optional.
apparently doesn't expend effort dismantling the institutions which gave them inequal power and influence to start with
Not everyone who donates to charity is a billionaire. Peter Singer and Will MacAskill are not billionaires. SBF was, and he was obviously a bad look for the movement, but I don't think there's anything wrong with charitable giving or prioritizing effective, high-impact charities. If you live in a western country and benefit from that, one might think you have an obligation to do something more valuable with your wealth than horde it, and none of that entails anything about what you think or support regarding the rough distribution of wealth in a society.
No OP, but there isn't comprehensive data on if vegan food systems could support earth population or even if that wouldn't come with it's own externalities like requiring more land conversion for...
I'm not sure why (or even if) you think food deserts falsify the claim linked. If you do, you didn't provide any reason to think this is the case. If I'm reading the comment correctly, it seems like you felt the article was low effort and in turn your response was low effort, which if it were me would be a good reason to think that maybe I shouldn't have posted the reply.
No OP, but there isn't comprehensive data on if vegan food systems could support earth population or even if that wouldn't come with it's own externalities like requiring more land conversion for agriculture. It's a big talking point within the mariculture community. I assume that kacey is pointing out that the author gave no evidence to back up their claims so they would only provide scant evidence to support theirs. I took it as food deserts show that vegan diets are currently inaccessible to large portions of the population so what happens to them during this mandated conversion?
Thank you for jumping out ahead of this! And yeah, I wasn't going in-depth in any of my arguments, since I didn't feel that the author did their bare minimum of performing adequate research to...
Thank you for jumping out ahead of this! And yeah, I wasn't going in-depth in any of my arguments, since I didn't feel that the author did their bare minimum of performing adequate research to establish their baseline premises.
I would note that I have a slightly different take? I haven't dug into the agricultural side of veganism, and was focused more on the practicalities of immediately converting diets of at least ~18 million people in the USA -- that they can't get access to any decent quality ingredients, on the regular, let alone vegan ingredients. But I should add the agricultural perspective to my reading list, too, thank you for the suggestion!
Can you link to where the author talked about a mandated conversion? The point is that the majority of people in wealthy countries do not have to purchase factory farmed animal products. Also, the...
I took it as food deserts show that vegan diets are currently inaccessible to large portions of the population so what happens to them during this mandated conversion?
Can you link to where the author talked about a mandated conversion? The point is that the majority of people in wealthy countries do not have to purchase factory farmed animal products. Also, the cheapest and most ubiquitous food options don't come from animals (rice, beans, vegetables, lentils, etc.) So two main points I have:
No reason at all was given for why we should think food deserts mean some people have to purchase factory farmed animal products. If anything, given that plant-based foods are among the cheapest and most widely available, they should be in at least as good of a position as the average westerner
If I'm wrong about the previous point, this doesn't address the previous claim that the majority of people in wealthy countries can go vegan if they wanted to
I've never read an article that was so in line with my opinion on effective altruism. Extreme, self righteous, uncompromising, with a level of zealotry usually reserved for the most ardent...
I've never read an article that was so in line with my opinion on effective altruism. Extreme, self righteous, uncompromising, with a level of zealotry usually reserved for the most ardent evangelists. The choice to use a subjective opinion on the morality of veganism to justify effective altruism while going after native practices is just.... so on the nose. I'm imagining the author becoming fully erect to Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons, missing any modern commentary on its sexist and racist origins. The plea to rationality while presenting none. The article works hard to misrepresent arguments for traditional ecological knowledge and indigenous food ways, and the author seemingly can not view anything outside of their world view with anything other than extreme contempt. And by doing so he has completely lost the forest to the trees. To me, the tone of the article itself is a great caution against EA.
The progressive critique of effective altruism is the same critique of all philanthropy, it leaves the fulfillment of the needs the general population to whims of the wealthy. As far as I can tell, the argument here is that EA has made large impacts towards a better future for hundreds of thousands of animals and any benefit should be applauded. That heaped with a metric fuckton of contempt for anyone who disagrees. So here in lies the rub: with EA communities the people with the money - in this case our faithful author - has full jurisdiction over what funding is spent on. Considering their extreme ideological bent, I would assume more pressing priorities for the general populace such as food security would be deprioritized in favor of mandated veganism. What progressive ideology calls for is support and benefit to all folks society, with priorities set by the collective. This runs headlong into the ethos of EA, where he with the funds knows best.
I love articles like this because the mask has slipped, the extreme views have been surfaced, and it validates that altruism is not the goal - ideological supremacy is.
Even on the vegan question we're into trolley problem territory. Are we optimizing for the health of the ecosystem or for maximum avoidance of deaths? If we're just trying to stop things from dying should we be culling species that are responsible for the most predation? They do that in japan with dolphins and whales, granted for the goal of increasing fish stocks for harvesting, not protecting, but if killing 100 dolphin saved 5000 tuna would it be worth it? Or are we optimizing for the overall health and fecundity of an ecosystem? In that case, traditional hunting practices can be beneficial to ecosystem health and population management.
Progressive support of traditional practices is that they sustainably manage natural resources, particularly when compared to modern commercial practices. We have been part of the food chain for tens of thousands of years. With traditional harvesting practices we're into the question of removing an established predator from an ecosystem. So to me our author is not concerned about ecosystem or population health, it's just numbers saved. So our author has saved 100,000 chickens from the axe, amazing. Now where are you going to have 100,000 invasive birds, bred to be as vulnerable to predation as possible, live out their days bliss? I'd argue that purchasing a chicken farm, finishing the current "crop" of chickens for their intended purpose of food, and then converting half to vegetal produce and half restored to nature would be far more altruistic. But the nuance of navigating actually beneficial solutions doesn't jive with ideological extremism.
A couple of quotes that I think best encapsulate the main point of the first two paragraphs (and they were what you were building up to it seemed like): Your issue appears to be with the tone of...
A couple of quotes that I think best encapsulate the main point of the first two paragraphs (and they were what you were building up to it seemed like):
To me, the tone of the article itself is a great caution against EA.
Your issue appears to be with the tone of the article, not the content of the article, which ironically is precisely what the article is criticizing.
I love articles like this because the mask has slipped, the extreme views have been surfaced, and it validates that altruism is not the goal - ideological supremacy is.
This is honestly a bizarre claim, I'm not even sure what to make of it.
If we're just trying to stop things from dying should we be culling species that are responsible for the most predation? They do that in japan with dolphins and whales, granted for the goal of increasing fish stocks for harvesting, not protecting, but if killing 100 dolphin saved 5000 tuna would it be worth it? Or are we optimizing for the overall health and fecundity of an ecosystem?
We kill 80,000,000,000 animals in factory farms year over year that live their lives in absolutely nightmarish conditions crafted by decades of maximizing efficiency. It's not clear what, if anything, we can do to make natural ecosystems better. One clear thing we can do is stop the torture and slaughter of 80,000,000,000 animals per year.
I agree with the overall sentiment of the article. I think the arguments in favor of veganism are so sound—and, moreover, if those arguments are correct, then their ethical implications are so...
I agree with the overall sentiment of the article. I think the arguments in favor of veganism are so sound—and, moreover, if those arguments are correct, then their ethical implications are so damning—that basically every common argument against veganism is both comically bad and also a transparent psychological defense mechanism.
But this article strikes me more as a single slap in a particular slap fight than a reasoned defense of veganism. Maybe that's an unreasonable critique—maybe the article never purported to be a reasonable defense of veganism—but, even so, I don't really see its value. Very short on light and very long on heat.
(That said, it did point me to this article on "reasonable moods", which I find very compelling in general, even if I'm skeptical of some of its specific claims.)
Sidenote: All I know about effective altruism I read from Scott Alexander. From what I understand main idea is "if possible, make a donation, to help others in maximum way now or in the future"....
Sidenote:
All I know about effective altruism I read from Scott Alexander.
From what I understand main idea is "if possible, make a donation, to help others in maximum way now or in the future". Help can include donating money to charity by your choice, donating kidney to stranger in need, or helping in some other way. He (Scott Alexander) sometime post a list of charities/fonds to which he thinks make sense to donate. Sometime it's different medical research facilities, AI safety groups, and other research fonds.
I see nothing wrong here? In the end it's just a donation, and nothing wrong with idea to try to do a maximum good with it. It's your decision to donate or not, and donate to whom in the end.
I don't know if there is a faster way to make me not take anything you have to say seriously than if you are a proponent of effective altruism. EA seems to solely exist to help rich people justify being rich in a world with extreme income inequality and poverty.
I don't want to trust someone to get rich and spend their money to help the world (how well did that work with SBF?). I want a world where it is impossible to become a billionaire in the first place and everyone is able to live their lives healthy, safely and however they wish within reason.
To me there’s a difference between effective altruism (focus on giving to effective, high-impact charities) and Effective Altruism (what you describe). I’d never heard of the latter being a definition of EA until I came to Tildes.
That's fair. I suppose I cannot say with certainty that it's all bad. Maybe I have been poisoned by SBF and general hatred for tech bro billionaires.
I’ll borrow a definition from the nuclear sector:
How does this relate to effective altruism? Silicon Valley folks tend to be early adopters of a lot of things/ideas, and EA is one of them. As artificial intelligence became more prominent in the tech sector, folks made the calculation that AI risk = (20-99%) x BAD = a very high risk of an AI catastrophe. Basically, they assumed the risk of an AI catastrophe was very high, potentially risking billions or trillions of future lives, or all of humanity. With those stakes, it’s very easy to justify doing anything to stop it (including donating a lot of money to AI safety charities). Personally, I think the probability is much lower, and that the bed nets are a more effective charitable contribution.
The whole "obviously we must invest our millions into AI" outcome is absolutely one of my reasons for disliking "EA" vs the concept of donating to charities that are effective in their use of money like you describe. The former has absolutely poisoned the well for me against the use of the term for the latter. That and the idea that they're worth too much to volunteer their time as much as their money.
Like for example, the No One Dies Alone program, where the local hospital calls if they have someone with no family or family who cannot make it to the bedside so that people receiving hospice/end of life care aren't alone. The idea that this is not a worthwhile use of time because it's inefficient is pretty anathema to my sense of human dignity and respect (and to connect to the article, it's pretty much entirely unrelated to my feelings about non-human animals). It may certainly not be in someone's skill set, but I think that's why I don't trust the people reducing this down to a math equation to make those judgements about worth and value vs engaging with something they care about.
Like I found a post arguing about the dollar equivalent of donating blood and that since it's very likely someone else will donate, it's a waste of their time/resources. Like, that's certainly not an argument that can be universalized - it becomes the bystander effect for an entire population.
Idk that's why I don't like it as someone on the left.
I would agree with your assumption and that AI is over blown as they need to keep selling it to us to justify all of the money they keep setting on fire. This would be one example of an issue I have with a fundamental part of EA. That it is better for them to make a ton of money and hire 1000 doctors than to become a doctor themselves. Out of touch billionaires tend to not be the best judge of how to spend their money to help people.
The reason it might seem this way is that donating money to charity is largely a rich-people problem and if you don't have a lot of money yourself, advising people who do have money is a great way to have more impact.
That's a characteristic of the nature of charity work rather than EA in particular. Charitable foundations are started by rich people and young people interested in charity might go work for them.
That's also true of government and business: you can control or influence the spending of money that's not yours.
It's like the story of what a famous bank robber said when asked why he robbed banks: "that's where the money is."
It's also possible to raise money from small donations, but it's a lot more work. Politicians will do it to avoid accusations of being funded by the rich.
I think the "earn to give" stuff is misunderstood. Realistically, a lot of people who set out to be software engineers or whatever aren't going to quit their jobs and go to work at a low-paying job that supposedly does more good. And it might not be a good idea anyway if it's not what they're good at.
Perhaps giving money to charity is second-best, but it beats not doing it.
Justifying inequality is not what EA is about. It's about being practical. We can imagine a very different world, but it's not very relevant when you're deciding what to do in this world. If you're trying to get things done, putting "first, let's have a revolution" as step one of your plan means you never get to step two.
I'll also point out that convincing rich people to give money to poor people is working against inequality. It's not enough to prevent inequality because the forces working in the other direction are very strong. But it will matter a lot to the people it helps.
Can you provide some reason, any reason at all, to think this is true? The idea is that if we are to give to charity, we should try to maximize the positive impact of that donation, which seems like that's a good idea.
I'm not sure why one would think that'd be incompatible with effective altruism.
Sure, Sam Bankman-Fried and the network around him that tried to convince us he is a genius.
So I'm confused on how this inference works. We have this fact (that I agree with) that:
How does that give us a reason to think that EA solely exists to help rich people justify being rich in a world with extreme income inequality and poverty? How does this inference work, what kind of inference is this? How do we move from understanding a fact we are in agreement about to your conclusion which I deny?
Because it was used to justify his reckless spending before his massive financial crime was exposed.
EA is good in theory, but millionaires and billionaires rarely show a true desire to help people, as those qualities rarely go hand in hand with what is needed to become a billionaire.
So it sounds like you have beliefs that work like this:
"If X is used as a pretext for bad people to do something bad, then X solely exists for bad people to justify their bad behavior."
I feel that this kind of inference is neither sound nor cogent. It neither entails nor even raises the probably of the conclusion.
There is a difference between effective altruism and Effective Altruism. The main thrust of Effective Altruism is basically: if you have the capacity to acquire capital efficiently, then you should stop being good, and acquire as much capital as possible, which you then use to pay other people to be good on your behalf. Eg. Malaria nets, which is where this line of reasoning begins but it gets derailed immediately because:
The other weird prong of EA is longtermism which is tied in somewhat closely with the kind of stupid found on lesswrong.
Longtermism is basically, we can do more to help net global happiness by accelerating AGI than we could spending those resources in reducing present suffering because future humans have equal moral weight as current humans.
So the two dovetail in this incestuous way: the best and most moral thing to do is to acquire capital, and shockingly the most moral way to spend that capital is on my hobbies rather than actual real world present day suffering alleviation.
I’m not sure if you are familiar with this movement, but check out the writing of Will MacAskill if not.
From the about page, this is a blog of a bachelors in philosophy graduate who writes articles about how much they dislike woke, lefty, Bluesky people.
I've noticed an uptick of these kind of posts lately. I guess the broad genre is 'Angry Opinion Pieces', but the comments are much more fight-y than I'm used to on Tildes and I'd rather not see them. I've found filtering them nearly impossible.
The authors aren't prominent, and are varied, so I can't create a filter as it's not just one person. It's generally Some Random Guy Who Thinks Lefties Are Dumb, but there'll be an appeal towards authority for why they're actually an expert in making this particular dunk post
The source seems 'legit', or at least, it's possible something interesting might be posted from the source (in this example, Substack, but there are other less shady ones).
The topic sounds like a real thing, but reading the article it boils down to Twitter-style infighting, often about topics that require deep Twitter knowledge to understand the background of the debate. These blog posts aren't educating me on anything that I think is actually impactful. It feels like clickbait, because the title is written quite broad, then the 'article' is mostly highlighting people they think are stupid, usually through embedded tweets.
The comments on Tildes tend to be the submitter arguing why the submission is actually good, and why people are reading it wrong, like this example.
Does anyone have an idea for a topic filter that'll help cut down on these surfacing? I don't want to unsubscribe from ~society as there's a ton of thought provoking and interesting stuff in there, but I'm tired of 'Here Is My Detailed Argument About Why Lefty Online People Are Wrong About [whatever], And If You Disagree, YOU ARE ONE AND YOU ARE WRONG'
Back on old old reddit /r/videos put a 'YouTube Drama' tag, and that helped. These articles all feel like Twitter Drama, but I don't want to put the onus of a new tag on the taggers. I also doubt the submitters of these blog posts would categorise them the same way I do
I'm sincerely asking for help with setting up my filters here, not being tongue-in-cheek.
You could make a start by adding the
woketag to your filters.Fucking lol. Great timing!
I don't get what you mean by great timing? Or fucking lol? Any of this? It doesn't make sense as a response to the comment?
It feels like you're responding in a "sick burn!" way
Structurally, a problem with articles like this is that they are responding to bad takes on the Internet.
There is an infinite supply of bad takes on the Internet. Most of us don't care about them because we haven't read them, and often we have never heard of the people who wrote them, even if they're celebrities in some circles.
I think it's fine if you are inspired to write by bad takes on the Internet. That often motivates me too! But maybe the response should be more indirect? You could explain how something works that a lot of people don't seem to know.
I was thinking the same thing. This article feels very inside baseball, so to speak. I agree with @RNG that a few people here are making the sort of strawman arguments against veganism/effective altruism that the author rallies against, but on the other hand, the author isn't making a positive case for veganism or effective altruism in this blog post, either. It's really just a rant. Which is fine, of course, but that doesn't leave much substance to actually critique.
(edit) (just as a heads up, since I feel that the fact that top level responses are sent to one's inbox can seem aggressive, I'm not attacking you. Please understand that I'm slinging digital ink at Mr. Bulldog, and at the general concepts at play for discussion)
Several reactions 🎉
To quote Inigo Montoya ...
Nah. I'll put as much effort into my rebuttal as this blogger did into their research ❤️
Ooh, thank you Mr. Bulldog! That was my argument, actually: effective altruism inherently requires [2] wealth disparity, and a dysfunctional democracy, to function. It's a moral philosophy that can only exist by ceding power to the 1% of people who have sufficient wealth to make choices for the unwashed masses. Hypothetically, in a democracy, we all get one vote about how our collective country's resources are spent -- but when you hoard cash, and dole out a pittance of it for posterity, you're kinda expending 107 billion votes to my one. But I guess I should be thanking my abuser for pulling one punch out of ten?
[1]: "I" and "building" are used loosely, since the occasion is rare that an EA-enthusiast physically performs labour, given that useless occupations such as construction worker or volunteer are opportunity cost sinkholes. Obviously.
[2]: _In_effective altruism is the one where Sarah McLauchlin convinces your mom to donate one dollar to a sad puppy, taking a year to raise what Jeff Bezos makes in roughly half a day's "work".
I'm not sure why (or even if) you think food deserts falsify the claim linked. If you do, you didn't provide any reason to think this is the case. If I'm reading the comment correctly, it seems like you felt the article was low effort and in turn your response was low effort, which if it were me would be a good reason to think that maybe I shouldn't have posted the reply.
This wasn't the argument; respectfully I don't think a sincere effort to honestly engage with the substance of the article was put forward.
np; I'll break down the argument a smidge for ya. The first paragraph does a decent job explaining why I can barely read this:
This intro paragraph uses three rhetorical tricks in order to lend credence to a poor argument:
As a result, your readers get the impression that "the leftists" are a bunch of dumb people (since they argue against something as obviously wholesome as veganism), so now their arguments against effective altruism must been examined with the undertone that they're incapable of reason.
The author does this again, actually!
Genuinely in my time on this great planet I have never seen a flesh and blood, real, actual living human being make this argument. I assume someone has -- eight billion people and all that -- but this is truly the strawest of strawman arguments. This is the freaking 21st century; the noble savage stereotype needs to die.
I can keep going about analyzing the article if you'd like? It's pretty much slop tbh but it's always useful to hone my literary criticism blade, so to speak. One lens I like to use for analysis like this -- which I learned from the Less Wrong forums many moons ago! -- is Schopenhauer's 38 Stratagems, or 38 Ways to Win an Argument. It's a pretty succinct list of how to be rhetorically dishonest and seem convincing!
Respectfully, disagreed. I'm responding to this subsection of the author's rant:
The unspoken subtext is that we should be grateful to the rich people, exploiting systems that they perpetuate, tossing fat wads down at us. Wait, no, sorry that's actually in the text nvm:
In conclusion, like, I don't know what the actual substance of the article is, so it's difficult to engage with it. Roughly I think the author's reasoning goes like this:
But that's ... not an argument. Or at least, it's barely worth engaging in. This feels like commenting on a tumblr post.
So to address this, many leftists are effective altruists. The critique is aimed at leftists who provide awful critiques of veganism and effective altruism. This is a subset of leftists. And even non-EA leftist vegans constantly criticize leftists who are okay with paying for factory farmed animals, look at any leftist vegan online space.
I've seen this take constantly, primarily from white liberals, defending their financial support of factory farming. Also the article linked an example of someone making this exact argument...
The first clause is false for reasons I addressed. I can't even make sense of what the second clause is trying to say in the present context.
Can you link literally anything from the article you just read that could even possibly imply this?
I'm not even sure there's anything to say about this one...
Could you quote a part of the article which indicates that it's aimed at only "leftists who provide awful critiques of veganism and effective altruism"? From my read, the author very clearly delineates between "leftists" and "Effective Altruists", and never states that there's an overlap. Maybe their other works are more precise in their wording, but I'm unfamiliar with the authorship of Mr. Bulldog?
Eight billion people. Because this is the Internet, I can find you a person who genuinely believes with their whole heart that the Earth is sealed under a clear dome and flies through space as our little blue disc. I'll be more specific: in the thousands of people I run into IRL -- sometimes in spaces populated very heavily by people in vegan/animal rights circles -- I have never met a single soul who pushed the rhetoric that Mr. Bulldog dug up.
I ... literally did. That's why we're discussing the first paragraph, which creates a false equivalence between the "leftists against veganism" argument and the "leftists against effective altruism" argument. I suppose to quote it again:
(emphasis mine)
The author creates a false narrative about leftists and veganism, somehow, and then links it to their argumentation against effective altruism. Which as I noted in my lead comment, is completely different to my primary argument against it: if you're so fabulously wealthy that you can donate large sums of money to vanity charity projects, the system is broken and you are behaving inherently undemocraticly. Hey, it can be effective, idc, but it seems that the truly most effective altruism would be donating towards groups that are attempting to end the systems which make it effective to start with.
Hey what the heck, I'll quote the article at you:
(emphasis mine)
And to be clear, and break down my jokey tone a bit:
The lack of the word "all" prior to using the term? There are obviously vegan and EA leftists that Matthew Adelstein (the author) is aware of, is friends with, and has co-written with. Maybe I'm biased from knowing the author in question, but he never said anywhere that this criticism is exclusively from leftists and constitutes what all leftists say. Obviously the biggest opponents of vegan causes are conservatives, but they are less hypocritical in their responses, as they are mask-off ghouls on all of their positions.
Are you a vegan? Have you ever advocated publicly for the welfare of the animals we brutalize on factory farms? I promise you, this is in the rotation of mindless criticisms aimed at vegans. I've heard this argument constantly, including from a real life leftist friend.
The claim I was looking for some backing for was "Because this [Lefty people all universally have a bad take on veganism] is wrong, all Lefty People takes are also wrong". Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not sure how what you stated substantiated this claim. The charitable reading of your comment is that Adelstein is moving from "anti-vegan leftists are wrong about veganism" to "anti-EA leftists are wrong about EA" which I wouldn't find as objectionable as the original claim.
First, we can care about more than one thing at a time, and if you care about donating to charity at all, it seems good to care about your contributions being effective and high-impact.
Like a Marxist revolutionary party or something? Are we not allowed to participate in charitable giving unless it is to The Correct Leftist Revolutionary Movement™ (which is, incidentally, incompatible with all other leftist revolutionary projects). I don't think we have a good reason to think there's a project like this that just a little bit of funding away from transforming the lives of the global south, the working class, and factory farmed animals, such that in expectation it does the most good to donate to them.
Fair enough! As noted, I'm completely unaware of the author's other works, so all I have to go off of are his linked words. Typically I'd assume that a professional (?) writer would make clear that distinction, but I guess it's super implicit to everyone else.
If you put a gun to my head, yep! I don't like to associate in groups, but since you're asking me a direct question, I lean further into that one that out of it. I repeatedly fail -- especially when my favourite restaurant slips ham into their tofu sandwiches (>:|) -- but I do all the vegan things (avoid meat and animal byproducts, leather, etc.). This is transgressive, but I extend forgiveness to myself (and others!) when I screw up or have to pause for a moment due to health issues (it's effectively impossible in my area to get cost effective, prepared, vegan meals, so it's oatmeal for every meal otherwise). That also goes for any prepared food with sugar as a listed ingredient, since it'll often use bone char, and eliminating everything that has not been marked with the big 'ol V is outside of my budget. Then there's veganic farming, which is not even in the same postal code as my budget!
Feel free to call me whatever you'd like, however! I've almost certainly been called worse.
Thank you for reading my comment charitably; I hope that we are both doing the same! I was being hyperbolic to make a point, as I felt that Mr. Bulldog (Adelstein?) was equally exaggerating his points for effect. I do not think you dense, fwiw, I just expect that I'm making unexpected arguments -- coated in a crunchy layer of sarcasm, which never helps with comprehension -- and that's likely hindering our ability to communicate.
I dunno! I'm neither rich enough to be an Effective Altruist, nor a marxist, or a leftist! I'm just sitting on the sidelines musing about how a movement that promotes "using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible" -- as depicted in this article, I am really not into this subculture, so maybe you can dig up some alternate views -- apparently doesn't expend effort dismantling the institutions which gave them inequal power and influence to start with. It's terribly fascinating. The implicit conclusion seems to be that the Effective Altruists' perspectives' are superior, since the alternative would be giving the power of self-direction (i.e. shitloads of money) to the rest of us, which per their stated philosophy must mean that doing so is a globally inferior alternative than deciding for them?
But yeah these are just the musings of a spectator; as an individual without a large stake in this, I'm mostly going to be swept by the wayside anyhow, so I'm just enjoying the show.
That's sufficient to identify as a vegan in my book. I don't think it's always practicable to tell if the sugar in some treat was made with bone char, but it's easy not to buy chicken nuggies or buy cows' milk. By the way, this wasn't intended to be a purity test or anything, it's just my opinion that most who defend animal rights online hear the same arguments over and over again (crop deaths, too expensive, it doesn't make a difference, plants feel pain, it's racist/colonialist, food deserts, it tastes good, etc.) I'd just be surprised if anyone who has spoken up for animal rights hadn't heard it, but maybe you haven't made a concerted effort to argue with folks online.
I sincerely thank you for taking steps to reduce your contributions to animal agriculture. People who are making a concerted effort to reduce animal consumption are making a significant impact on both reducing demand for animal products and normalizing animal-free diets.
I know this isn't the point of the discussion, but I am more than willing to send you some of my favorite meal prep recipes! They are super cheap, and can cook a lot of food at a time (like a weeks worth of lunches.) I recommend an InstantPot for convenience or just a rice cooker otherwise, as there's tons of options that open up for low-cost meal prep. One of my favorites is this fried rice recipe:
Store in fridge. I like frying up leftovers in a pan with soy sauce and sesame oil if I have time! Optionally add some tofu or other vegan protein alternative (I like Just Egg), but that's optional.
Not everyone who donates to charity is a billionaire. Peter Singer and Will MacAskill are not billionaires. SBF was, and he was obviously a bad look for the movement, but I don't think there's anything wrong with charitable giving or prioritizing effective, high-impact charities. If you live in a western country and benefit from that, one might think you have an obligation to do something more valuable with your wealth than horde it, and none of that entails anything about what you think or support regarding the rough distribution of wealth in a society.
No OP, but there isn't comprehensive data on if vegan food systems could support earth population or even if that wouldn't come with it's own externalities like requiring more land conversion for agriculture. It's a big talking point within the mariculture community. I assume that kacey is pointing out that the author gave no evidence to back up their claims so they would only provide scant evidence to support theirs. I took it as food deserts show that vegan diets are currently inaccessible to large portions of the population so what happens to them during this mandated conversion?
Thank you for jumping out ahead of this! And yeah, I wasn't going in-depth in any of my arguments, since I didn't feel that the author did their bare minimum of performing adequate research to establish their baseline premises.
I would note that I have a slightly different take? I haven't dug into the agricultural side of veganism, and was focused more on the practicalities of immediately converting diets of at least ~18 million people in the USA -- that they can't get access to any decent quality ingredients, on the regular, let alone vegan ingredients. But I should add the agricultural perspective to my reading list, too, thank you for the suggestion!
Can you link to where the author talked about a mandated conversion? The point is that the majority of people in wealthy countries do not have to purchase factory farmed animal products. Also, the cheapest and most ubiquitous food options don't come from animals (rice, beans, vegetables, lentils, etc.) So two main points I have:
No reason at all was given for why we should think food deserts mean some people have to purchase factory farmed animal products. If anything, given that plant-based foods are among the cheapest and most widely available, they should be in at least as good of a position as the average westerner
If I'm wrong about the previous point, this doesn't address the previous claim that the majority of people in wealthy countries can go vegan if they wanted to
I've never read an article that was so in line with my opinion on effective altruism. Extreme, self righteous, uncompromising, with a level of zealotry usually reserved for the most ardent evangelists. The choice to use a subjective opinion on the morality of veganism to justify effective altruism while going after native practices is just.... so on the nose. I'm imagining the author becoming fully erect to Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons, missing any modern commentary on its sexist and racist origins. The plea to rationality while presenting none. The article works hard to misrepresent arguments for traditional ecological knowledge and indigenous food ways, and the author seemingly can not view anything outside of their world view with anything other than extreme contempt. And by doing so he has completely lost the forest to the trees. To me, the tone of the article itself is a great caution against EA.
The progressive critique of effective altruism is the same critique of all philanthropy, it leaves the fulfillment of the needs the general population to whims of the wealthy. As far as I can tell, the argument here is that EA has made large impacts towards a better future for hundreds of thousands of animals and any benefit should be applauded. That heaped with a metric fuckton of contempt for anyone who disagrees. So here in lies the rub: with EA communities the people with the money - in this case our faithful author - has full jurisdiction over what funding is spent on. Considering their extreme ideological bent, I would assume more pressing priorities for the general populace such as food security would be deprioritized in favor of mandated veganism. What progressive ideology calls for is support and benefit to all folks society, with priorities set by the collective. This runs headlong into the ethos of EA, where he with the funds knows best.
I love articles like this because the mask has slipped, the extreme views have been surfaced, and it validates that altruism is not the goal - ideological supremacy is.
Even on the vegan question we're into trolley problem territory. Are we optimizing for the health of the ecosystem or for maximum avoidance of deaths? If we're just trying to stop things from dying should we be culling species that are responsible for the most predation? They do that in japan with dolphins and whales, granted for the goal of increasing fish stocks for harvesting, not protecting, but if killing 100 dolphin saved 5000 tuna would it be worth it? Or are we optimizing for the overall health and fecundity of an ecosystem? In that case, traditional hunting practices can be beneficial to ecosystem health and population management.
Progressive support of traditional practices is that they sustainably manage natural resources, particularly when compared to modern commercial practices. We have been part of the food chain for tens of thousands of years. With traditional harvesting practices we're into the question of removing an established predator from an ecosystem. So to me our author is not concerned about ecosystem or population health, it's just numbers saved. So our author has saved 100,000 chickens from the axe, amazing. Now where are you going to have 100,000 invasive birds, bred to be as vulnerable to predation as possible, live out their days bliss? I'd argue that purchasing a chicken farm, finishing the current "crop" of chickens for their intended purpose of food, and then converting half to vegetal produce and half restored to nature would be far more altruistic. But the nuance of navigating actually beneficial solutions doesn't jive with ideological extremism.
A couple of quotes that I think best encapsulate the main point of the first two paragraphs (and they were what you were building up to it seemed like):
Your issue appears to be with the tone of the article, not the content of the article, which ironically is precisely what the article is criticizing.
This is honestly a bizarre claim, I'm not even sure what to make of it.
We kill 80,000,000,000 animals in factory farms year over year that live their lives in absolutely nightmarish conditions crafted by decades of maximizing efficiency. It's not clear what, if anything, we can do to make natural ecosystems better. One clear thing we can do is stop the torture and slaughter of 80,000,000,000 animals per year.
I agree with the overall sentiment of the article. I think the arguments in favor of veganism are so sound—and, moreover, if those arguments are correct, then their ethical implications are so damning—that basically every common argument against veganism is both comically bad and also a transparent psychological defense mechanism.
But this article strikes me more as a single slap in a particular slap fight than a reasoned defense of veganism. Maybe that's an unreasonable critique—maybe the article never purported to be a reasonable defense of veganism—but, even so, I don't really see its value. Very short on light and very long on heat.
(That said, it did point me to this article on "reasonable moods", which I find very compelling in general, even if I'm skeptical of some of its specific claims.)
Sidenote:
All I know about effective altruism I read from Scott Alexander.
From what I understand main idea is "if possible, make a donation, to help others in maximum way now or in the future". Help can include donating money to charity by your choice, donating kidney to stranger in need, or helping in some other way. He (Scott Alexander) sometime post a list of charities/fonds to which he thinks make sense to donate. Sometime it's different medical research facilities, AI safety groups, and other research fonds.
I see nothing wrong here? In the end it's just a donation, and nothing wrong with idea to try to do a maximum good with it. It's your decision to donate or not, and donate to whom in the end.