SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
"As the new class of nouveau riche technocrats have secured money, power, and cachet they've also popularized the charity scam of "effective altruism" (EA)--a new twist on the creepy claim that greed is, or can be, good." (Photo: d3sign/Getty Images)
The Most Effective Altruism? Igniting Positive Social Change
Let's hope that Sam Bankman-Fried's crypto debacle drives a stake through the heart of Bankman-Fried's other fraud, the movement for effective altruism.
Dec 06, 2022
For many of us, the past few years have been like a series of terrifying mass psychology experiments.
That positive change might even include a move away from individual philanthropy and toward a government that fully embraces public welfare.
The election of Donald Trump plus the "Stop the Steal" pretense of his re-election exposed our collective susceptibility to cults of personality. In public and online, the flash fire rise in hate speech and the corrosion of social norms showed how rapidly we devolve when the guardrails are off. And COVID-19 not only pulled the rug out from under our happy delusion of control, it displayed the wildly various ways we justify our response, and our rage when we feel challenged and vulnerable.
So you would think we might finally acknowledge that humans are only infrequently rational.
But for good and ill, we are always yearning and social--thus our great attraction to the latest trendy scams. In times of yore it was tulips; more recently it's been crypto-currency.
And as the new class of nouveau riche technocrats have secured money, power, and cachet they've also popularized the charity scam of "effective altruism" (EA)--a new twist on the creepy claim that greed is, or can be, good.
EA proclaims it's more effective to make scads of money and give some of it away than to save lives as a doctor among the poor and dying--supposedly there's always someone else ready to be that doctor if you choose instead to generously channel your altruism into hedge funds. It's more effective to contribute to a carbon offset fund than to personally reduce your carbon footprint.
EA pretends to accountability but is only the latest example of how to lie with statistics.
Should you engage in masturbatory fantasy and pour money into your nerd hero dream of stopping the future robot apocalypse, that's ever so much more effective than anything you could do to help today's inhabitants of Planet Earth--because any effort to prevent catastrophe in the distant future will presumably affect billions upon billions more human lives, spread beyond the planet.
As Amia Srinivasan notes in her superb 2015 takedown of EA, EA is "profoundly individualistic" and reliant on the status quo. EA's calculations assume that humans won't change.
But humans have to change if we are going to survive life on Earth. And perhaps the best thing we have going for us is that we are inherently social creatures, responsive to others. For my money, the most effective philanthropy seeks to use our social instincts for good, seeking to ignite a chain reaction of positive social change.
And that positive change might even include a move away from individual philanthropy and toward a government that fully embraces public welfare. Here's a radical thought: Anything truly worth doing is worthy of public support via public agencies and tax dollars.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Phyllis Eckhaus
Phyllis Eckhaus has written for Newsday, The Nation, and In These Times, among other publications. She works for the ACLU, but this opinion is entirely her own.
For many of us, the past few years have been like a series of terrifying mass psychology experiments.
That positive change might even include a move away from individual philanthropy and toward a government that fully embraces public welfare.
The election of Donald Trump plus the "Stop the Steal" pretense of his re-election exposed our collective susceptibility to cults of personality. In public and online, the flash fire rise in hate speech and the corrosion of social norms showed how rapidly we devolve when the guardrails are off. And COVID-19 not only pulled the rug out from under our happy delusion of control, it displayed the wildly various ways we justify our response, and our rage when we feel challenged and vulnerable.
So you would think we might finally acknowledge that humans are only infrequently rational.
But for good and ill, we are always yearning and social--thus our great attraction to the latest trendy scams. In times of yore it was tulips; more recently it's been crypto-currency.
And as the new class of nouveau riche technocrats have secured money, power, and cachet they've also popularized the charity scam of "effective altruism" (EA)--a new twist on the creepy claim that greed is, or can be, good.
EA proclaims it's more effective to make scads of money and give some of it away than to save lives as a doctor among the poor and dying--supposedly there's always someone else ready to be that doctor if you choose instead to generously channel your altruism into hedge funds. It's more effective to contribute to a carbon offset fund than to personally reduce your carbon footprint.
EA pretends to accountability but is only the latest example of how to lie with statistics.
Should you engage in masturbatory fantasy and pour money into your nerd hero dream of stopping the future robot apocalypse, that's ever so much more effective than anything you could do to help today's inhabitants of Planet Earth--because any effort to prevent catastrophe in the distant future will presumably affect billions upon billions more human lives, spread beyond the planet.
As Amia Srinivasan notes in her superb 2015 takedown of EA, EA is "profoundly individualistic" and reliant on the status quo. EA's calculations assume that humans won't change.
But humans have to change if we are going to survive life on Earth. And perhaps the best thing we have going for us is that we are inherently social creatures, responsive to others. For my money, the most effective philanthropy seeks to use our social instincts for good, seeking to ignite a chain reaction of positive social change.
And that positive change might even include a move away from individual philanthropy and toward a government that fully embraces public welfare. Here's a radical thought: Anything truly worth doing is worthy of public support via public agencies and tax dollars.
Phyllis Eckhaus
Phyllis Eckhaus has written for Newsday, The Nation, and In These Times, among other publications. She works for the ACLU, but this opinion is entirely her own.
For many of us, the past few years have been like a series of terrifying mass psychology experiments.
That positive change might even include a move away from individual philanthropy and toward a government that fully embraces public welfare.
The election of Donald Trump plus the "Stop the Steal" pretense of his re-election exposed our collective susceptibility to cults of personality. In public and online, the flash fire rise in hate speech and the corrosion of social norms showed how rapidly we devolve when the guardrails are off. And COVID-19 not only pulled the rug out from under our happy delusion of control, it displayed the wildly various ways we justify our response, and our rage when we feel challenged and vulnerable.
So you would think we might finally acknowledge that humans are only infrequently rational.
But for good and ill, we are always yearning and social--thus our great attraction to the latest trendy scams. In times of yore it was tulips; more recently it's been crypto-currency.
And as the new class of nouveau riche technocrats have secured money, power, and cachet they've also popularized the charity scam of "effective altruism" (EA)--a new twist on the creepy claim that greed is, or can be, good.
EA proclaims it's more effective to make scads of money and give some of it away than to save lives as a doctor among the poor and dying--supposedly there's always someone else ready to be that doctor if you choose instead to generously channel your altruism into hedge funds. It's more effective to contribute to a carbon offset fund than to personally reduce your carbon footprint.
EA pretends to accountability but is only the latest example of how to lie with statistics.
Should you engage in masturbatory fantasy and pour money into your nerd hero dream of stopping the future robot apocalypse, that's ever so much more effective than anything you could do to help today's inhabitants of Planet Earth--because any effort to prevent catastrophe in the distant future will presumably affect billions upon billions more human lives, spread beyond the planet.
As Amia Srinivasan notes in her superb 2015 takedown of EA, EA is "profoundly individualistic" and reliant on the status quo. EA's calculations assume that humans won't change.
But humans have to change if we are going to survive life on Earth. And perhaps the best thing we have going for us is that we are inherently social creatures, responsive to others. For my money, the most effective philanthropy seeks to use our social instincts for good, seeking to ignite a chain reaction of positive social change.
And that positive change might even include a move away from individual philanthropy and toward a government that fully embraces public welfare. Here's a radical thought: Anything truly worth doing is worthy of public support via public agencies and tax dollars.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.