Thanks for this great post. 

My first reaction to the original article (which I saw scrolling through the NY Times online, without any realisation that it was about EA or Effective Giving), it made me really angry. It still makes me angry, and I'm not normally the type to get angry. 

First, given that I had just co-founded an Effective Giving organisation in Ireland, following a @Charity Entrepreneurship Incubator, I found it very sad that people were sharing such ill-informed articles, which would potentially discourage many donors from using their donations to help many more people. I cannot help but wonder how many more children will die because of this article? How many more animals will suffer in factory farms because of this article? 

Because this article is wrong in a very bad way. It doesn't just focus on the benefits of giving to charities that are close to your heart - it also actively criticises effective giving as if it were something that only truly insensitive people would do, as if EA's as a species were somehow less than human because we dare care more about the people we want to help than about the warm fuzzy glow we get when we donate. 

Because that is what effective giving is. It is saying "When I donate, I am going to decide how to donate not based on what feels good to me, but rather on what will help the most people or animals." 

But also, almost nobody in the effective giving movement discourages "non-effective" charity. First, because most of us arrived there not because we were super-logicians, but rather because we've been donating all our lives to causes we care deeply about, and started to realise that some of these donations weren't helping people in desperate need as much as they might. But we still kept donating - and then when we discovered Effective Giving, it was like opening our eyes to a world of people who thought just like us, but had taken it a step further and devoted their lives to it. 

It sickens me to see how these people, some of the most sensitive, generous and caring people I've ever encountered, have been mischaracterised in this article as unfeeling cynics who were in it for the joy of the math. 

There are benefits to giving to all charitable causes* and that it is absolutely great when a person donates to a charitable cause close to their heart, or with which they have a personal connection to it. Effective Giving organisations want to help raise their awareness that there is also the option to give some of their money to very effective causes. We don't ask that they stop giving to causes they already support. Indeed, there is a famous "3 pots" thinking (I first heard this from @Bram Schaper, the inspiring leader of the Dutch effective giving organisation, Doneer Effectief)  that we often share: If you have some money available after all your costs have been paid, why not share it out into 3 pots:

• something for yourself, your family, your friends, ...
• something for a charity close to your heart
• something for a highly effective charity that will ensure your donation really helps someone a lot.

I really wanted someone with some credibility to reply to this article and call it out for what it was, which is just nonsense, low-quality, one-sided journalism. But apparently it's OK to display bias as long as the people you're biased against are mostly well off white males, which is unfortunately the stereotype of EA's. The problem was that it wasn't the well off white male EA's who were the victims of the article, but rather the people that we are all trying to help, the people who desperately need help. 


But, I decided to reflect a while before posting an angry comment on here, and I actually read some other comments about the article. Calm, measured, accepting that people have a right to their opinions. They focused on the fact that the journalist probably meant well and was probably a good person - and kind of glossed over the minor detail that that same journalist had shockingly and intentionally mis-characterised the entire EA and Effective Giving movements in a very harmful way. 

Can you imagine how any other group would feel if they were treated like that? 

Where was the anger? Where was the passion to stand up for what we believe in? 

It's very easy to sit comfortably in our chairs and debate the subtle details of arguments. But that's not how we're going to change the world. If we're willing to let people attack the EA movement and Effective Giving and not defend ourselves, how can we expect to convince others? 

We may be mostly in the 99th percentile for calm, logical reasoning, but the vast majority of people** are not. History shows that great movements require not just great thinkers and strategies, but also passionate advocates, and even sometimes stubborn, pig-headed supporters who do not back down. 

And if we want to be scientific about it, we can. There is a huge amount of science related to effective ways to communicate with and convince the general public. Writing precise, detailed arguments is one of the least effective parts of this - although it is still vital that someone does this. 

The world right now is utterly broken. In a world with the technology and capacity to feed and clothe and nourish and educate and care for everyone, we have billions of people who literally do not have the most basic necessities like clean water or enough food to avoid starvation. We have wars started because individual Sudanese generals or national leaders decide they want more power or a stronger image - and so hundreds of thousands die. We have an out of control AI development program led by a group of immature men with no history of responsible behaviour. We have a growing risk of nuclear war. We have a climate crisis that we're effectively ignoring and denying even as the evidence grows more incontrovertible every day. 

EA's are among the few groups who really care about this. But if we remain a niche group and let ourselves be defeated by inaccurate stereotypes and biased communicators, we're not going to have the impact that the world desperately needs us to have. 

We have great thinkers and wonderful, good people within the EA movement. But we could use more overt passion - many of us are deeply passionate about EA, but too many of us do not want to share that passion with the world, to shout out our demands and lead others towards our ideas, without them necessarily having to go through the same deep thought process that brought many of us here. 

Many people just want to be part of a movement - why not let that movement be one that will make the world better. Instead, we are literally being out-thought by people like Donald Trump, who understands people's need to be part of a movement and is more than happy to cynically exploit it. 

Imagine how much better off we'd be if people were chanting "no more factory-farms" and "stop the wars" rather than anti-immigrant slogans. But we won't get there by just imagining it. 

 

*although, especially in the US, some tax-exempt causes like extremely rich universities attended by some of the richest students, are IMHO pushing the definition of "charity" a bit too far.

**more than 98% of people, to be exact!

"Links to the nonprofits would be useful."

Here are a few which may not be easy to find since they're quite new: 

Effective Giving Ireland: Effective Giving Ireland

Benefficenza: Home – Benefficienza

Mieux Donner: Mieux Donner

We at Effective Giving Ireland are thrilled to be supported by Meta-Charity Funders. It's really going to be a game-changer for us. For tax-reasons, we'd strongly encourage everyone to donate effectively in their home countries, many of which will now have an effective giving option, which is often tax deductible. 

Until I read this article, saw this post and read the comments on it, I kind of imagined that EA's were very similar to normal people, just a bit more altruistic and a bit more expansive and maybe a bit more thoughtful. 

This post scares the hell out of me. 

This article is one of the worst articles I've ever seen in the NY Times. It is utter bullshit, but coated in meaningless, sweet-sounding words. 

This is an attack on everything that we believe in! What the hell will it take to make EA's angry if this nonsense, in probably the most famous newspaper in the world, does not? 

Why do we just sit back and think "that's not a very fair analysis"?

Does nobody feel an urgent need to defend ourselves, to get on TV and radio and places other than the EA forum and explain to the world that this article totally misses the point of EA, totally mischaracterises what we're trying to achieve and why? 

If someone wrote an article about a minority group and described them with a few nasty racist stereotypes, there would be massive protests, retractions, apologies and a real effort to ensure that people were well informed about the reality.

The word "minority" is important here. If EA were the dominate mode of donating to charity, as it should be, then sure, it would be fine for someone to write that there is also value in donating to small, local charities, to challenge the status quo. 

But EA represents only a small minority of donors today, so it is totally inappropriate for a journalist to pick on it. 

But what really makes my blood boil are those who were not mentioned or consulted by this sad excuse for a journalist. For example, the people who desperately need food or medicine to survive. The animals who suffer in factory farms. The people who will suffer the most from climate-change. 

We need to call this out for the bullshit it is. EA's believe that, when you donate, you should think a bit more about the people and animals who desperately need your help, and about what they need and how to help them, and maybe think a little bit less about the warm fuzzy feeling you get helping someone who will thank you profusely in person. 

I absolutely refuse to accept that there is something wrong with that, and I find it shocking and appalling that the NY Times would publish this article as probably the only significant article they have published about EA since the last negative articles they published during the SBF affair. 

At the very minimum, they have a responsibility to get their facts straight. Just read the four paragraphs where she introduces effective altruism. For her it is not a ground-roots movement, it is all about billionaires and ultra-wealthy. This is just not true. But she doesn't even mention that 99.999% of EA's are not rich by American standards - it's just that, unlike most, we're aware of how rich we are by global standards. 

I would really hope to see a strong rebuttal submitted by someone in the EA movement. I would write it myself (and I will), but I don't think an article by me will get published in the NY Times. But there are people in the EA movement who are not millionaires but who do have the name-recognition and credibility to be listened to. This absolutely needs to happen, and fast. Maybe we could turn this negative into a positive. But giving season is already in full swing, and the people and animals who desperately depend on effective giving cannot afford to lose any of the insufficient donations they already get, even if it does mean that the local dog-shelter gets painted in bright Christmassy colours. 

For now I plan to share this on my own social media and use it as an excuse to talk about effective giving and, as a side note, to share an example of shoddy journalism. 

@Leonie Falk I'm not clear if this is what you're looking for, but ... during Covid, there was obviously a lot of need for oxygen solutions, and one result of this is a lot of great work, mostly open-source in optimal design of oxygen concentrators. 

At least one group in the U. of Cambridge set up with the view to optimising the supply and distribution of oxygen concentrators in developing countries, mainly in Africa. I was involved only at the start of the project, so I don't have the latest status. Part of the team was located in Kenya (?). The vision was to mass-produce these in Kenya. There are regions there with very suitable zeolite rocks, which (in an oxygen concentrator) are used to adsorb Nitrogen from a stream of air, so that the stream coming out is very rich in Oxygen, up to 95% or in some cases even 99%. 

The reason this is interesting is that oxygen concentrators are relatively low-tech, and while they need electricity, they do not need to be refilled with oxygen. They also avoid many of the safety issues related to handling oxygen containers, which work great in London hospitals but maybe not in small, rural clinics with no experts present. 

You probably know all this, but if not, definitely feel free to ask me more about the technology of oxygen concentrators. The point you might not know is about the project run with Cambridge, which is just a 40-minute train journey from London. I'd be happy to introduce you to Professor David Fairen-Jimenez, who is a global expert on adsorption technologies and was a colleague of mine for several years. 

Congratulations on founding this amazing charity! When we worked on this, one thing I recall was all the people saying "Even without Covid, there is a massive need for oxygen!" It's brilliant that you're helping to address that! 


 

I think you may greatly understate your case. I would argue that, especially in the US, the lack of credible "public intellectuals" is one of the greatest problems of our age, and that there is a huge opportunity for the right people to fill this role. 

EAs with the right communication skills could be perfect public intellectuals, and if they could move the debate, or even the Overton window, a bit more towards effective positions, that would be a massive contribution to the world. 

True, there are plenty of opinionated people out there, but it feels like mostly they are trotted out to support the party line rather than to provide genuine insight. They are more like lawyers arguing their "side" - and realistically, people don't trust lawyers to give honest insight. 

If I look at France or Italy, for comparison, there have always been a few figures who tend to be asked for opinions about major topical questions, and their views carry weight. In other countries and in previous times, church leaders play or played a similar role - rarely with positive consequences ... 

Today there are so many questions where public "debate" consists of people shouting slogans at each other, and whoever shouts loudest wins. I don't think most people like this. There are a few journalists (e.g. David Brooks in the NY Times) who have the confidence and authority to express opinions that are not necessarily partisan, and are presented with careful arguments, evidence and reference to critical thinking by others, including those who do not support him. 

This is the work of the public intellectual, and when it is done well, it can still help people to change their minds or at least to understand both sides of an argument. It feels like philosophy (and maybe history) are the most obvious fields in which this kind of skillset and credibility can be achieved and earned. 

I see this as a great opportunity for effective altruists because, unlike so many knee-jerk positions, EA's tend to have very carefully and analytically investigated every question, and to have done so with a very clear and tangible criterion. We need more EA's writing and being interviewed in places where the general public can hear them - and we need those people to be trained in the art of communicating to the general public (not just other EAs) without dumbing down (which would defeat the purpose of aiming to be seen as a public intellectual. The best speak in such a way that other people share their ideas, in part, as a sign that they are smart enough to understand them. 

I see support for philosophers as very valuable if it can lead not just to new insights, but more importantly, to new voices ready to communicate in the public domain. 

Another article on this today, in the New York Times. 

 

Both are shockingly underfunded. But I think future generations will be even more shocked by how we treated (i.e. actively caused great suffering to) farm animals than by how we failed to help humans in dire need. 

Good analysis of this from PauseAI:

I don't want to presume to paraphrase their analysis into one phrase, but if I were forced to, it would seem to be that there was a lot of pressure on Governor Newsom from powerful AI companies and interests, who also threatened to ruin the bill's sponsor Scott Wiener. 

Still a pity that he couldn't resist the pressure. 

It's kind of pathetic, but this is the reality of politics today. With their money, they really can either make or break a politician, and we voters are not smart enough to avoid being taken in by their negative advertising and dirt-digging. 

It's clear that we need a much stronger movement on this. The other reason he was able to veto this bill is that the vast majority of people do not agree that AI poses a major / existential risk, and so they do not insist on the urgent action we need. 

I understand they have fixed this issue, but if not, just contact them directly. 

I signed up originally with an abbreviated version of my national ID number, but they preferred to correct the system and have the accurate number.