Effective altruism

{{bronze}}
[[File:AI Existential Risk panel at EA Global.jpg|thumb|right|300px|One of the endless series of panel discussions on EA, this one discussing AI and existential risk. The leader of [[Elon Musk|effective assholism]]<ref>[https://archive.is/9YLf3 The effective assholism movement doesn’t need to hide its accomplishments] by Rich Seymour (1:28 PM · Aug 10, 2022) ''Twitter'' (archived from 17 Feb 2023 03:13:34 UTC).</ref> is in the center. Pictured, left to right: a moderator, {{wpl|Nick Bostrom}}, [[Elon Musk]], Nick Soares, and {{wpl|Stuart J. Russell}}]]
{{philosophy}}
{{cquote|#Bitcoin is Effective Altruism.|||Michael Saylor, Bitcoin billionaire who was charged with [[tax]] evasion in 2022<ref name=czbinance>[https://archive.vn/QNwf1 I thought effective altruism is a bad word now.] by @cz_binance (5:39 AM · Nov 15, 2022) ''Twitter'' (archived from 18 Dec 2022 18:23:38 UTC).</ref>}}
{{cquote|I thought effective altruism is a bad word now.|||Changpeng Zhao, owner of [[cryptocurrency]] fund Binance<ref name=czbinance/>}}
'''Effective altruism''' ('''EA'''), and its umbrella concept '''longtermism''', is a quasi-[[utilitarian]]<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/16/sam-bankman-fried-fraud-philanthropy The failed philanthropy of Sam Bankman-Fried] (October 16, 2023 at 7:47 p.m. EDT) ''The Washington Post''.</ref> movement to change the world through making carefully-targeted charitable donations&nbsp;— not ''only'' through making carefully-targeted charitable donations, but that is the overwhelming focus. The movement is a curious hybrid of academic philosophy and passionate Internet posts, and of arguments that donors should focus on extreme poverty today, and arguments that donors should focus on preventing the [[cybernetic revolt]] and maximizing the population in the distant future. It can be found at academic institutes in Oxford and think-tanks in the [[San Francisco|Bay Area]] and attracts credentialed experts and [[libertarianism#"Techno-libertarians"|technolibertarians]]. Philosopher [[Peter Singer]] provided and popularized much of the intellectual framework,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20131208163553/http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_singer_the_why_and_how_of_effective_altruism.html Peter Singer: The why and how of effective altruism] (Filmed Mar 2013 • Posted May 2013) ''TED Talks'' (archived from December 8, 2013).</ref> but became very wary about EA, stating in 2021:<ref>[https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/ethical-implications-of-focusing-on-extinction-risk-by-peter-singer-2021-10 The Hinge of History] by Peter Singer (Oct 8, 2021) ''Project Syndicate''.</ref>
{{cquote|The dangers of treating [[extinction]] risk as humanity’s overriding concern should be obvious. Viewing current problems through the lens of existential risk to our species can shrink those problems to almost nothing, while justifying almost anything that increases our odds of surviving long enough to spread beyond Earth.}}

The sales pitch is that, if you're going to try to make the world a better place for other people, you should try to do the best possible job you can. If you had the choice between helping a local community theater group put on a show or [[Think of the children|saving African children from malaria]], the right thing to do is, of course, to save the children. People face dilemmas like this in real life whenever they donate money to [[charity]]: if you're not donating to the most cost-effective charities that you can, you fail at [[utilitarianism]]. (It's impossible '''not''' to fail at utilitarianism, but you can fail less hard.) The longtermists then argue that giving Bengalis clean drinking water is good, but preventing the [[Existential risk|end of the world]] is even better (and that this is best accomplished by giving the longtermists' friends money to advocate or think really hard about the problem).

If one is initially presented with the proposition that effective altruism will help poor people, this can be regarded as a [[bait-and-switch]] tactic. This is because the foundational text of longtermism was a doctoral thesis that essentially argued for killing the poor because helping the rich would purportedly increase innovation:<ref name=becker/>{{rp|167-169}}
{{cquote|To take another example, saving lives in poor countries may have significantly smaller ripple effects than saving and improving lives in rich countries. Why? Richer countries have substantially more
innovation, and their workers are much more economically productive. By ordinary standards. It least by ordinary enlightened humanitarian standards saving and improving lives in rich countries is about equally as important as saving and improving lives in poor countries, provided lives are improved by roughly comparable amounts. But it now seems more plausible to me that saving a life in a rich country is substantially more important than saving a life in a poor country, other things being equal.|||Nicholas Beckstead<ref>[https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/40469/PDF/1/play/ ''On The Overwhelming Importance Of Shaping The Far Future''] by Nicholas Beckstead (2013) Rutgers University. Ph.D. thesis</</ref>{{rp|11}}}}

It is important to remember that EA invented neither the concept of charity, nor the concept of evaluating charities — though some EAs behave as though they did. Beware of EAs [[Equivocation|equivocating]] by responding to criticisms of the EA subculture's behaviours with advocacy of the value of charity or evaluating charities in general.

==How EAs evaluate charities==
One faction within Effective Altruism takes an empirical approach and sets up organizations to compare different charities — charity evaluators, such as GiveWell and Giving What We Can (GWWC). GiveWell and GWWC tend to rate charities in a quasi-utilitarian way, using a combination of the best available published evidence for the interventions, and asking lots of questions of the charities they rate relating to things like checking that the interventions actually work (auditing), room for more funding, and whether adding more funding would do the same amount of good, more good, or less good. Overhead is also considered: however, overhead is not regarded as a terrible thing if it invests the effectiveness of the work (monitoring programs being a notable example). Public health and poverty reduction in poor countries tend to do well by these metrics, which EAs sometimes call "shorttermism."  

Another faction takes a rationalist approach. It tries to estimate the chance and costs of events which have not happened yet but could happen in the future, such as an asteroid impact or [[Singularity|the invention of superintelligent machines]]. It further argues that some of these risks are best reduced by paying people to study them or lobby governments - say [[WEIRD|educated people in the Global North]] affiliated with the Effective Altruism movement. This approach is known as longtermism and is closely associated with the term [[existential risk]].  

These tensions can be seen when EAs talk about reducing animal suffering. While reducing the suffering of all creatures sounds utilitarian, its hard to compare animal and human suffering in any objective way. And shorttermist approaches such as reforming farming policy are very different from [[Transhumanism|transhumanist]] dreams of remaking the world so predators never take live prey.

People in the two factions sometimes dislike each other, with longtermist leaders presenting shorttermists as ignorant people who provide resources but need to be managed, and shorttermists noticing that longtermist EA looks like many other charities which fund the leaders' friends and pet projects and fail to produce measurable results.<ref>Mollie Gleiberman, "Effective Altruism and the strategic ambiguity of ‘doing good’," IOB Discussion Paper 2023.01 (April 2023) https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:iob:dpaper:2023.01</ref> But since they attend the same events, admire the same thinkers, and read the same websites, shorttermists often find themselves donating to MIRI, and longtermists often make token donations to charities endorsed by GiveWell. Shorttermism was more effective at getting a broad base of support, but longtermism attracted large donations from wealthy figures in the software industry, and was backed by leaders of the movement such as William MacAskill.

===GiveWell===
However, GiveWell has partnered with billionaire [[Facebook]] co-founder Dustin Moscovitz and his wife's charitable foundation in a joint initiative called the Open Philanthropy Project, and in this initiative they have been accused of casting aside analytical rigour, and have been accused of bias.<ref>[https://www.vox.com/2015/4/24/8457895/givewell-open-philanthropy-charity You have $8 billion. You want to do as much good as possible. What do you do? Inside the Open Philanthropy Project.] by Dylan Matthews (Updated Oct 16, 2018, 10:05am EDT) ''Vox''.</ref>

GiveWell has also recommended that people spam the Against Malaria Foundation (AMF) with all<ref group=note>except if they are billionaires, obviously</ref> the money they have set aside to donate, on the grounds that they think it's the best charity, even at the risk of exhausting the AMF's room for more funding, amongst other dubious decisions.{{cn}}

Effective altruists have criticized GiveWell for being too strict in their criteria which leaves UNICEF out of their list of recommended charities because UNICEF focuses on too many interventions which makes it harder for GiveWell to evaluate their effectiveness.<ref>[https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/pNFp7PsWLHYWCqW9s/where-i-m-giving-and-why-eric-friedman Where I'm giving and why:  Eric Friedman] (21<sup>st</sup> Dec 2013) ''Effective Altruism Forum''</ref> This is despite the fact that UNICEF engages in many cost-effective interventions, such as providing vaccines.

==Origins==
[[File:Peter Singer - Effective Altruism -Melb Australia Aug 2015.jpg|thumb|right|165px|Singer at an EA conference in 2015]]
[[File:Eliezer Yudkowsky.jpg|thumb|right|165px|Yudkowsky (left) at the Singularity Summit in 2007]]
The philosophical underpinnings mostly come from [[Australian]] philosopher Peter “infanticide is good actually" Singer, particularly his 1972 essay {{wpl|Famine, Affluence, and Morality|''Famine, Affluence, and Morality''|.}} He argues in this essay that affluent people are [[moral]]ly obligated to donate far more of their income to humanitarian causes than is considered normal in Western culture. This did not start the effective altruism subculture, but once it was going, he joined in enthusiastically.
Proponents define their effort as all: 
{{quotebox|. . . about asking "How can I make the biggest difference I can?" and using evidence and careful reasoning to try to find an answer. It takes a scientific approach to doing good. Just as science consists of the honest and impartial attempt to work out what's true, and a committment to believe the truth whatever that turns out to be. As the phrase suggests, effective altruism consists of the honest and impartial attempt to work out what's best for the world, and a commitment to do what's best, whatever that turns out to be.<ref>William MacAskill, [https://www.effectivealtruism.org/doing-good-better Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Make a Difference.] Avery, 2016.</ref>}}

However, the book was embraced by oligarchs like [[Bill Gates]]<ref>See https://www.effectivealtruism.org/doing-good-better</ref> who may only have used it to launder their reputation. 

The effective altruism subculture &mdash; as opposed to the concept of altruism that is effective &mdash; originated around [[LessWrong]].<ref name="effective-altruism.com history"/> The earliest known use of the term was in the form "effectively altruistic" by user "Anand" in a 2003 edit on the wiki of the [[singularity|singularitarian]] Shock Level 4 mailing list, a predecessor of LessWrong run by [[Eliezer Yudkowsky]].<ref>[https://archive.is/Af8Um History of EffectiveAltruism] by Anand (October 4, 2003 1:19 am) ''SL4Wiki'' (archived from 14 Aug 2017 23:23:52 UTC).</ref> Anand's article argued that donating to the Singularity Institute (now known as MIRI) is more effective than donating to prevent the spread of [[HIV/AIDS]], even though the latter may be more emotionally compelling. Later, the term was used in the form "effective altruist" by Yudkowsky himself in his 2007 blog post ''Scope Insensitivity'', arguing against sentimentality and for [[utilitarian]] calculation in charity:<ref>[http://lesswrong.com/lw/hw/scope_insensitivity/ Scope Insensitivity] by Eliezer Yudkowsky (13<sup>th</sup> May 2007) ''LessWrong''.</ref>
{{quotebox|If you want to be an effective altruist, you have to think it through with the part of your brain that processes those unexciting inky zeroes on paper, not just the part that gets real worked up about that poor struggling oil-soaked bird.}}

Other names were used, ''e.g.'' "efficient charity" in 2010,<ref>[https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FCxHgPsDScx4C3H8n/efficient-charity Efficient Charity] by multifoliaterose (4<sup>th</sup> Dec 2010) ''LessWrong''.</ref> but the movement eventually settled on the name "effective altruism" by 2012.<ref>[http://www.jefftk.com/p/a-name-for-a-movement A Name for a Movement?] (March 12<sup>th</sup>, 2012) ''Jeff Kaufman''.</ref><ref name="effective-altruism.com history">[http://effective-altruism.com/ea/5w/the_history_of_the_term_effective_altruism/ The history of the term 'effective altruism'] by William MacAskill (10<sup>th</sup> Mar 2014) ''Effective Altruism''.</ref>

==Earning to give==
People that call themselves effective altruists commonly endorse the "earning to give" approach, at least for those who have, or might be able to get, well-paid jobs. At its most hardcore, "earning to give" means getting the highest-paying job that one can and then donating as much of it as possible (up to some threshold, for sanity's sake). After all, you can get more done by paying a bunch of other people to solve problems for you than you can do all on your own, right?<ref name=todd>[https://web.archive.org/web/20221213032816/https://80000hours.org/articles/earning-to-give/ Why and how to earn to give] by Benjamin Todd (Published September 2014; Last updated April 2017) ''80,000 Hours'' (archived from December 13, 2022).</ref> One story about EA originally did not give much heed to the morality or potential for harm of the job itself, recommending "trading in quantitative hedge funds" in 2014-2015,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20150722200911/https://80000hours.org/articles/earning-to-give/ Why and how to earn to give] ''80,000 Hours'' (archived from July 22, 2015).</ref> later adding a caveat in 2017:<ref name=todd/>
{{cquote|Don’t many high earning jobs cause harm? We don’t recommend taking a job that does a lot of harm in order to donate the money.}}
But still retaining "quantitative trading" as a career option.<ref name=todd/> This does not appear to be a harmless career choice at all in light of the quantitative trading that helped lead to the [[Great Recession]] in 2009, or quantitative trading that led to the bankruptcy of the {{sl|FTX}} [[cryptocurrency]] exchange in 2022.<ref>[https://www.thestreet.com/memestocks/crypto/ftxs-sam-bankman-fried-greatest-ponzi-scheme Was FTX’s Sam Bankman-Fried Behind the World's Greatest Ponzi Scheme? The FTX collapse has had a catastrophic effect on crypto in general. Could this have been the biggest Ponzi scheme in history?] by Bernard Zambonin (Nov 28, 2022 6:17 AM EST) ''The Street''.</ref> Disregarding the potential harm that one's job causes for the purposes of philanthropy, makes the philanthropy either a smokescreen, or the whole process one of [[consequentialism]] (ends justifying the means).

In practice, people will not always take (or keep) the highest-paying job they can, for a variety of reasons including commute time, company culture, working hours, the employer's attitude to diversity, work-related stress, and whether the management are perceived to treat employees well or badly. However, 80,000 Hours, an organisation dedicated to giving career advice to wannabe effective altruists, published a blog post claiming that research showed that, depending on the type of stress, stress at work wasn't necessarily a big deal anyway and in some cases, people should consider just sucking it up and maybe "reframe stress as opportunity", in the interests of saving more children from malaria.<ref name='80,000-stress'>[https://80000hours.org/2016/02/should-you-look-for-a-low-stress-job/ Will high stress kill you, save your life, or neither?] by Roman Duda (February 26<sup>th</sup>, 2016) ''80,000 Hours''.</ref>

Also, in practice nobody ''literally'' donates "as much as possible," an unrealistic standard which would presumably mean forgoing any kind of luxuries and a curtailed social life, at least after securing a long-term relationship — and which would still leave the awkward question of whether one's kids should be brought up in near-poverty. (The powerful human instinct towards protection of one's own offspring would tend to mitigate against such thinking when it came down to it — and if not, there's always [[Child Protective Services|social services]].) One EA organisation, Giving What We Can, promotes a suggested amount of 10% of one's entire working lifetime income, spread over a working lifetime. Although this is easily achievable by generously-compensated San Francisco Bay Area software engineers, and (as even Giving What We Can recognises) not achievable by students struggling to get by on student loans, some in the movement seem curiously blind to the fact that not everyone who has a job might be able to part with 10% of their entire income (what amounts to a voluntary [[flat tax]] — punitive for the [[poor]] and easy for the rich). Some — not all of them millionaires — even pledge to give ''much more'' than 10% of their income. It is unclear whether this behaviour is, on balance, inspirational, or whether it acts to drive away potential donors, activists and charity workers who might feel that this is a movement of exclusively privileged people that is remote from their lives and concerns.

Compounding the problem, effective altruism is regularly conflated, even inside the movement, with:
* Giving What We Can, even though not all people who identify as "effective altruists" have pledged to donate 10% of their income or are planning to do so
* [[Utilitarianism]], even though not all effective altruists are utilitarians
* Supporting everything that everyone in the movement does, even though that would be arguably self-contradictory (see below)

EA organisations regularly conduct research into what brings people into the EA movement, but no formal research seems to have been done into what ''drives some people away from EA''. The thinking of many EAs is that effective altruism is so ''obviously right'', only people who were somehow in fundamental disagreement with EA values like doing nice things, and doing more and better things rather than fewer and worse things, would even consider not joining the movement...

==Mosquito nets versus artificial intelligence risk==
[[File:Seva Mandir (discussion with co-founder Holden Karnofsky).JPG|thumb|right|165px|Karnofsky visiting the NGO Seva Mandir in Rajasthan, [[India]] in 2010]]
{{main|1=Artificial intelligence|3=Roko's basilisk|5=Cybernetic revolt}}
The ideas have been around a while, but the current subculture that calls itself Effective Altruism got a big push from {{wpl|Machine Intelligence Research Institute}} (MIRI) and its friends in the [[LessWrong]] community, many of whom considered MIRI ''obviously'' the most effective charity in the world.{{efn|They claim "8 lives saved per dollar donated".<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20111124200257/http://lesswrong.com/lw/6w3/the_125000_summer_singularity_challenge/4krk Rain comments on The $125,000 Summer Singularity Challenge - Less Wrong] by Rain (29 July 2011 06:19:00PM) ''LessWrong'' (archived from November 24, 2011).</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20110906062024/http://vimeo.com/7397629 Anna Salamon's 2nd Talk at Singularity Summit -- How Much it Matters to Know What Matters: A Back of the Envelope Calculation] by Singularity Institute (c. 2009) ''Vimeo'' (archived from September 6, 2011).</ref>}} However, unfortunately for MIRI, EA charity guide GiveWell subsequently rated donations to them as actually ''worse'' for their project (addressing the [[Cybernetic revolt|threat to humanity]] posed by hypothetical future advanced Artificial Intelligence technology) than not donating, with GiveWell's Holden Karnofsky stating in 2012, "I do not believe that these objections constitute a sharp/tight case for the idea that SI's work has low/negative value; I believe, instead, that SI's own arguments are too [[vague]] for such a rebuttal to be possible." GiveWell, unlike LessWrong and MIRI, primarily promotes charities focused on improving health in the [[developing world]]. GiveWell's criticism of MIRI argued that MIRI's focus on supposedly trying to save the world and create "Friendly AI" amounted to a form of [[Pascal's Wager|Pascal's Mugging]] — promising enormous benefits, even though the probability of actually receiving those benefits is tiny.<ref>[http://lesswrong.com/lw/cbs/thoughts_on_the_singularity_institute_si/ Thoughts on the Singularity Institute (SI)] by Holden Karnofsky (10<sup>th</sup> May 2012) ''LessWrong''.</ref><ref>[http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/pascal.pdf Pascal's mugging] by Nick Bostrom (2009) ''Analysis'' 69(3):443-445.doi:10.1093/analys/anp062.</ref>

This is not the only example. Reducing animal suffering is an important cause for some of the movement,<ref>[http://www.effective-altruism.com/four-focus-areas-effective-altruism/ Four focus areas of effective altruism.] by Luke Muehlhauser (7<sup>th</sup> Jul 2013) ''Effective Altruism Forum''.</ref> but some people have unusual ideas on how to do this. One prominent effective altruist has put up for discussion (since retracted) on his blog the idea of ''destroying nature'' in order to reduce wild animal suffering.<ref>[https://archive.vn/HbE2a Why improve nature when destroying it is so much easier?] (January 21, 2010) ''Robert Wiblin'' (archived from 30 Jun 2014 05:33:08 UTC).</ref> Was it [[satire]] or serious? [[Poe's Law|One may never know]]. In fact, some members of the Effective Altruism movement identify as "[[Utilitarianism#Average utilitarianism|negative utilitarians]]", meaning that preventing suffering is the only thing that matters. However, this philosophy seems to imply that we should be willing to destroy the entire world to prevent one person from suffering a pinprick,<ref>[http://www.amirrorclear.net/academic/ideas/negative-utilitarianism/ Why I'm Not a Negative Utilitarian] (Posted 28 Feb 2013; Last updated 1 Mar 2013) ''Toby Ord''.</ref> or at least [[anti-natalism]].

These examples represent internal tensions around a key concept of EA, longtermism, that was developed by William MacAskill and Toby Ord.<ref>[https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/qZyshHCNkjs3TvSem/longtermism 'Longtermism'] by William MacAskill (25<sup>th</sup> Jul 2019) ''Effective Altruism Forum''.</ref> MacAskill defines longtermism as:

{{quotebox|…the idea that positively influencing the longterm future is a key moral priority of our time. Longtermism is about taking seriously just how big the future could be and how high the stakes are in shaping it. If humanity survives to even a fraction of its potential life span, then, strange as it may seem, we are the ancients: we live at the very beginning of history, in the most distant past. What we do now will affect untold numbers of future people We need to act wisely.<ref name=macaskill>''What We Owe the Future'' by William MacAskill (2022) Basic Books. ISBN 1541618629.</ref>{{rp|4-5}}}}

This sounds wise and benevolent, but if predicting the future is often highly fraught, even a few years out. Without paying attention to immediate world problems, one can easily waste money and perhaps create unintended negative consequences. MacAskill self-[[deceit]] about concern for hypothetical distant futures came to the fore when he failed to predict the short-term future of the castastrophe that his own mentee, {{sl|Sam Bankman-Fried}}, created with the collapse of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange a few months after ''What We Owe the Future'' was published.<ref name=becker>''More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley's Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity'' by Adam Becker (2025) Basic Books. ISBN 1541619595.</ref>{{rp|10,19}}

Despite the many and varied differences of opinion within the EA movement, those that remain in the movement tend not to spend too much time arguing about fundamental "cause selection" issues (whether to donate to AI risk, global health, poverty or animal causes) — and even when they do, such discussions tend to remain relatively civil and non-rancorous. Part of the reason for this is that all EAs are in favour of "growing the pie" of EA supporters at this point in time, and most of them recognise that rancorous discussions would impede that goal. Although ideas about targeting growth differently have been mooted, such as focusing more on trying to recruit the rich (by hard-headed pragmatists) or women and ethnic minorities (by [[Social justice warrior|social justice people]]) or people who don't speak English (by people who think outside the English-speaking world), no-one is so pessimistic about their favoured EA cause area that they think that growing the pie won't gain their preferred cause area more EA recruits.

However, one EA has argued that this polite truce doesn't make sense, because if people think their cause is vastly better, they should be spending a lot of their time trying to persuade people of that.<ref name='ozy'>[https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/concerning-miris-place-in-the-ea-movement/ Concerning MIRI’s Place in the EA Movement] by ozymandias (17 Februrary 2016) ''Thing of Things''.</ref> [[Scott Alexander]] (real name: Scott Siskind), an EA supporter,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20230430202456/https://slatestarcodex.com/ Slate Star Codex] (archived from April 3, 2023).</ref> has counter-argued, based on his extensive personal (and often unsuccessful) experience of arguing with people who are sceptical about AI risk as a cause, that repeated arguments of this kind at EA meetups would be tiring, repetitive, and unpleasant.<ref name='ozy'/> This is not to say that Alexander does not advocate for AI risk reduction &mdash; however, he prefers to write long blog posts where he can assemble his arguments and evidence and engage in an extensive, uninterrupted written monologue.<ref>[http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/22/ai-researchers-on-ai-risk/ AI Researchers On AI Risk] by Scott Alexander (May 22, 2015) ''Star Slate Codex''.</ref>

==Where "Effective Altruists" actually send their money==
[[File:Wytham Abbey Geograph-3504897-by-Dave-Price.jpg|thumb|right|165px|Wytham Abbey: effective self-dealing]]
According to William MacAskill of "The Effective Altruism Blog", effective altruists in 2013 tended to think that the most important causes to focus on are global [[poverty]], [[Vegetarianism|factory farming]], and the [[Doomsday scenario|long-term future of life on Earth]].<ref>[http://www.effective-altruism.com/what-effective-altruism/ What is effective altruism?] by William MacAskill (12<sup>th</sup> May 2013) ''Effective Altruism''.</ref> In practice, this amounts to [[Not as bad as|complaining when people try to solve local problems]], feeling bad when people eat hamburgers,{{efn|EAs also disapprove of donating to train guide dogs (a.k.a. seeing-eye dogs in American English), although for completely different reasons than [[PETA]]. While PETA opposes the very concept of guide dogs because they believe that animals should not be owned, EAs note the high cost of training guide dogs compared to performing eye surgeries in poor countries to cure some types of blindness.}} and sending money to Eliezer Yudkowsky, respectively.

They claim to care about CO<sub>2</sub> emissions as well.<ref>William MacAskill, [https://www.effectivealtruism.org/doing-good-better Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Make a Difference.] Avery, 2016. "The most effective ways to cut down your emissions are to reduce your intake of meat (especially beef, which can cut out about a metric ton of CO<sub>2eq</sub> per year), to reduce the amount you travel (driving half as much would cut out two metric tons of CO<sub>2eq</sub> per year and one fewer round-trip flight from London to New York would eliminate a metric ton of CO<sub>2eq</sub>), and to use less electricity and gas in the home (especially by installing loft insulation, which would save a metric ton of CO<sub>2eq</sub> for a detached house)."</ref>

The effective-altruism.com ''2014 Survey of Effective Altruists'' was self-selected and non-random, but includes a list of how many respondents said they donated to various organisations:<ref>[http://effective-altruism.com/ea/gb/the_2014_survey_of_effective_altruists_results/ The 2014 Survey of Effective Altruists: Results and Analysis] by Peter Wildeford (16<sup>th</sup> Mar 2015) ''Effective Altruism Forum''.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20160325182505/https://eahub.org/sites/effectivealtruismhub.com/files/survey/2014/results-and-analysis.pdf The 2014 Survey of Effective Altruists: Results and Analysis] analysis by Peter Hurford, Jacy Reese, David Moss, and Robert Krzyzanowski (May 2014) ''EA Hub'' (archived from March 15, 2016).</ref>
{{clear}}
{{collist|2|
*Against Malaria Foundation: 211
*Schistosomiasis Control Initiative: 114
*GiveDirectly: 101
*'''Machine Intelligence Research Institute''': 77
*'''GiveWell''': 46
*'''CFAR''': 45{{efn|CFAR is the Center for Applied Rationality, another LessWrong-subculture organisation;<ref>[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303453004579290510733740616 More Rational Resolutions: To Reach Goals, Be More Logical and Take a Scientific View of Your Emotions] by Angela Chen (Updated Jan. 1, 2014 9:47 p.m. ET) ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref> at this time its mission was to promote rationality techniques, it repivoted in late 2016 to being another AI risk organisation.}}
*Deworm the World: 43
*Vegan Outreach: 27
*The Humane League: 22
*'''80,000 Hours''': 21{{efn|80,000 Hours is an EA career advice website.}}
*Project Healthy Children: 16
*'''Centre for Effective Altruism''': 14{{efn|The Centre for Effective Altruism in 2021 purchased "Wytham Abbey, a palatial estate near Oxford, built in 1480",<ref>[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/08/15/the-reluctant-prophet-of-effective-altruism The Reluctant Prophet of Effective Altruism: William MacAskill’s movement set out to help the global poor. Now his followers fret about runaway A.I. Have they seen our threats clearly, or lost their way?] by Gideon Lewis-Kraus (August 15, 2022) ''New Yorker''.</ref> reportedly for £15 million.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20221207041846/https://twitter.com/RhiannonDauster/status/1599539148565934086 Looks like it was on sale last year for £15M] by Rhiannon Dauster (11:00 PM · Dec 4, 2022) ''Twitter'' (archived from December 7, 2022).</ref>}}
*'''Giving What We Can''': 10
*'''Animal Charity Evaluators''': 10
*Leverage Research: 7{{efn|Leverage Research is a separate rationality organisation which has received funding from billionaire [[Peter Thiel]], and is "dedicated to researching the human mind and group dynamics."  In 2021, Zoe Curzi said that her time with Leverage from 2017 to 2019 harmed her in ways similar to those reported by cult survivors<ref>Zoe Curzi, "My Experience with Leverage Research," 12 October 2021 https://medium.com/@zoecurzi/my-experience-with-leverage-research-17e96a8e540b</ref>}}
}}

The organisations listed in '''boldface''' above are directly linked to EA, i.e. founded by, staffed by, and/or would not exist without EA enthusiasts. When one is essentially self-dealing like this, it's hard to argue that it's actual altruism (i.e., "disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others"<ref>altruism, ''n.'', ''Oxford English Dictionary''.</ref>).

Since longtermists are not strict about measuring impact, their organizations suffer some familiar dysfunctions. A good example is the Nonlinear Fund.<ref>https://www.nonlinear.org/</ref> This organization describes itself as an incubator connecting donors to existential risk nonprofits, but its first activities were paying two founders and trying to recruit an executive assistant to help with their lives as digital nomads.<ref>https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fX8JsabQyRSd7zWiD/introducing-the-nonlinear-fund-ai-safety-research-incubation</ref><ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20211022160447/https://www.nonlinear.org/operations.html</ref> Perhaps they needed an assistant, because the organization lost charitable status in 2021 for failure to file paperwork with the Internal Revenue Service.<ref>IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/ s.v. Spartz Philanthropies</ref> In their call for recruits, the founders made no argument why giving them an executive assistant would be especially effective altruism: their activities included things like giving out grants of a few hundred to a few thousand dollars and writing about Harry Potter for MuggleNet. Regardless, Nonlinear received grants in the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund their activities.<ref>"Our Grants, Investments, and Regrants," ''FTX Future Fund'' https://web.archive.org/web/20221126043117/https://ftxfuturefund.org/all-grants/?_organization_name=nonlinear $250,000 to support turning EA forum posts into audio</ref><ref>"Nonlinear Fund — Personal Assistant Hiring Agency" https://www.openphilanthropy.org/grants/nonlinear-fund-personal-assistant-hiring-agency/ $15,000 to create a hiring agency for personal assistants for EAs</ref><ref>"SFF-2022-H1 S-Process Recommendations" ''Survival & Flourishing Fund'' https://survivalandflourishing.fund/2022/h1/recommendations $599,000 to Rethink Charity USA for "general support of Nonlinear"</ref> A former operations staffer at the [[Singularity|singularian]] nonprofit [[MIRI]] says that he was also given tasks which blurred the line between business and domestic such as "inflating the boss' bike tires."<ref>KurtB, comment to Raemon, [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BGLu3iCGjjcSaeeBG/related-discussion-from-thomas-kwa-s-miri-research Related Discussion from Thomas Kwa's MIRI Research Experience], ''LessWrong'', October 7, 2023 {{quotebox|My manager asked if it would be fine for me to add bike tire inflation to my task list. I was happy to.  ...  one day (senior MIRI executive) Nate (Soares) got a flat tire out on the road, which is dangerous, and he was understandably upset. He complained to my manager who informed me. I saw Nate in the office kitchen later that day (a Saturday) and thought it was an appropriate time to bring up again that I was having trouble with our available pump. I didn’t know how to–''“Learn!”'' he snapped and then stormed out of the room. I considered this moment a major…update about the organization culture, communication standards, and my value in the org.}}</ref> In the happy time before the collapse of FTX, other EA organizations spent millions of dollars to buy the stately home of Wytham Abbey in the UK, Chateau Hostavoc in Czechia, and the Rose Garden Inn in Berkeley as venues for events.<ref>[https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/265125 Effective Altruism? FTX-Linked Charity Org Spent $3.5 Million on Czech Castle], ''Binance News'', March 2, 2023</ref><ref>Sarah Emerson, [https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahemerson/2023/02/28/effective-altruism-linked-group-used-millions-donated-by-ftx-to-buy-a-czech-castle/ Effective Altruism-Linked Group Used Millions Donated By FTX To Buy A Czech Castle], ''Forbes'', February 28, 2023</ref><ref>Stephen Council, [https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/sbf-berkeley-rose-garden-inn-19520351.php A Berkeley landmark is now embroiled in Sam Bankman-Fried's crypto drama], ''SFGate'', June 18, 2024</ref> Without the shorttermist focus on measuring results, longtermist EA took only a few years to reinvent the charity that has unclear impact on the outside world but definitely gives the founders and their friends a luxurious lifestyle.

==Cultishness==
EA has been accused of being a [[cult]], and it does have a few of the hallmarks of a cult:<ref>[https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/11/26/sam-altman-and-the-cult-of-effective-altruism/ Sam Altman and the cult of effective altruism: How did such a mad, apocalyptic ideology gain so much influence?] by Andrew Orlowski (26<sup>th</sup> November 2023) ''spiked''.</ref><ref name=kinstler>[https://www.economist.com/1843/2022/11/15/the-good-delusion-has-effective-altruism-broken-bad The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad? A group of young idealists wanted to live the most ethical lives possible. Now some wonder whether the movement they joined has lost its moral compass] by Linda Kinstler (Nov 15<sup>th</sup> 2022) ''The Economist''.</ref>
*Obsession with hypothetical [[existential risk]] such as [[Roko's basilisk]] and longtermism<ref name=kinstler/>
*[[Groupthink]] centered around leaders {{sl|Sam Bankman-Fried}}'s FTX and Sam Altman's [[OpenAI]] and Nick Bostrom's Future of Humanity Institute in particular<ref name=kinstler/>
*Intentional use of equations in [[rhetoric]] to baffle followers and detractors alike<ref name=kinstler/><ref>[https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/2NJszbnBTwibfdpo7/strong-longtermism-irrefutability-and-moral-progress Strong Longtermism, Irrefutability, and Moral Progress] by Ben Chugg (Dec 26 2020) ''Effective Altruism Forum''.</ref><ref>[https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2020/against_longtermism/ A Case Against Strong Longtermism: A response to Hilary Greaves and William MacAskill (part 1/4)] by Vaden Masrani (Dec. 10, 2020) ''Vaden Masrani''.</ref><ref>[https://vmasrani.github.io/blog/2021/poverty/ The Poverty of Longtermism: Why longtermism isn't an idea that could save one hundred billion trillion lives (Part 4/4)] by Vaden Masrani (July 3, 2021) ''Vaden Masrani''.</ref>
*The [[Utilitarianism#Problems and criticisms|flawed premise of utilitarianism]] that underlies EA
*Bostrom's apparently viewing himself as a superhero<ref name=kinstler/><ref>[https://nickbostrom.com/poetry/poetry#fhi_oxford Poetry: FHI at Oxford] (2018) ''Nick Bostrom''.</ref>{{efn|Bostrom's World Transhumanist Association (later renamed Humanity+) took $20,000 from [[Jeffrey Epstein]] ''after'' Epstein had pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from a minor<ref>[https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-epstein-science-donations-apologies-statements Jeffrey Epstein’s Links To Scientists Are Even More Extensive Than We Thought] by Peter Aldhous (Updated on August 27, 2019 at 7:02 am) ''BuzzFeed News''.</ref>&nbsp;— so much for altruism!}}

''The Economist'' quoted one unnamed effective altruist as saying, "Don’t ever say ‘People sometimes think EA is a cult, but it’s not."<ref name=kinstler/> The article next said that EA may not be a cult but rather "kind of church&nbsp;– one that has become increasingly centralised and controlled over time."<ref name=kinstler/> An edited book on EA and religion has even been written.<ref>[https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/9783748925361-1/titelei-inhaltsverzeichnis?page=1 ''Effective Altruism and Religion: Synergies, Tensions, Dialogue''], edited by Dominic Roser, Stefan Riedener & Markus Huppenbauer (2022) ''Nomos Verlag''. ISBN 9783748925361. doi:10.5771/9783748925361.</ref>

==Risks==
[[Robin Hanson]] points out that people accumulate knowledge and wisdom as they get older and may change their minds about important things as a result. He therefore advises effective altruists — those of them who are young, anyway, which is most of them — to do nothing now and save money for later, because they might change their mind about where to give that money. Hanson, who specialises in the study of allegedly [[hypocritical]] human behaviour ("X is not really about Y!") argues that effective altruists are prone to irrationally give now rather than later, to signal sincerity to their fellow effective altruists. When asked whether it is not better to give now while we still can, because our future selves might spend the money on e.g. putting our children through university, he responded "Maybe that's the right thing to do! Why do you distrust your future self so much?"<ref>Robin Hanson, talk at King's College London entitled "Robin Hanson on: Effective Altruism, Betting, Robots & More", 20 March 2016</ref>

Like activism and do-gooding generally, for high-{{wpl|scrupulosity}} people, going overboard with EA can be dangerous. It can lead to {{wpl|burnout (psychology)|burnout}} from overwork and/or neglecting one's own needs and/or those of one's family. It's worth remembering that, "effective" as it may be to buy a bed net for a child in Africa, people close to you also have needs of various sorts, which can often most "effectively" be met by you.

While helping poor people in distant countries seems more efficient than helping your neighbours in a rich country, most people don't have the ability to supervise how the donations are being spent. Shorttermist EA requires trusting third parties such as charity evaluators.  Longtermist EA diverted funds to causes such as buying the stately home of Wytham Abbey to hold events at, and hiring personal assistants and cleaning services for longtermists, which were not what every donor had thought they were supporting.<ref>"The life and death of Oxford’s ‘effective altruism’ dream" https://oxfordclarion.uk/wytham-abbey-and-the-end-of-the-effective-altruism-dream/</ref><ref>Glieberman, "Effective Altruism and
the strategic ambiguity of ‘doing good’," 27-29</ref> People who prefer to trust but verify might want to donate closer to home.

A significant number of EAs advocate giving large portions (10%+) of one's income away on a continuous basis, but it is important to remember that one's circumstances may change — for example, one may lose one's job or encounter a health crisis — so it is worthwhile considering saving some money in case you need it. One can always give away that saved money later, or change one's mind if one decides that the money is really need for oneself.

Excessive moralising about EA can also cause one to — like a kind of inverse {{wpl|How to Win Friends and Influence People|Dale Carnegie}} — lose friends and fail to influence people. Arguably, persuading other people to give to good causes is best approached in an upbeat "look what you could achieve" way, rather than trying to guilt-trip people. (The latter is probably more likely to work on people who were already high-scrupulosity and thus more susceptible to EA ideas in the first place — so the value of "converting" such people to EA by guilt-tripping them could well be less than you might think, because they might have ended up being converted anyway.)

In the (unlikely) worst case scenario, you could lose all your non-EA friends through being seen as extremely preachy and arrogant, then later become financially ruined through a chance accident or illness leaving you unable to work, have no savings to fall back on — and then receive no help whatsoever from your EA friends despite all the past good you have done, because helping you is not an "effective" cause. This scenario is probably unlikely to pan out this way in practice though. Probably.

==Longtermist argumentation==
{{main|PIDOOMA}}
A substantial amount of longtermist argumentation relies on fabricated numbers with little-to-no basis in reality. This includes could be called pseudoprobabilities, i.e. [[Probability|probabilities]] that are fabricated without a basis in reality, including probabilities spat out from AI chatbots.<ref name=becker/>{{rp|152-156}} This is something that EA critic Adam Becker derides as "small-number-multiplied-by-big number arguments", for example claiming that there is a minutely small probability (10<sup>-30</sup>) of humans colonizing the [[Milky Way|galaxy]] and populating it with vastly large number of people (10<sup>100</sup>) whose average happiness metric would be slightly larger that on current Earth, thus creating 10<sup>70</sup> (vastly greater than the current population of 8×10<sup>9</sup>) happier humans in the far distant future. No effort is made to measure happiness on Earth, or even to describe how one could go about doing this, let alone where the future estimate of happiness would come from. One problem with these highly-speculative premises is that the longtermerists draw what they think are strong conclusions: e.g., abandon the idea of making the world a better place for prioritizing space colonization.<ref name=becker/>{{rp|170-172}} A second more fundamental problem with this type of argument is that one winds up at [[Utilitarianism#The Repugnant Conclusion|The Repugnant Conclusion of utilitarianism]], that many unhappy people are better to have than a few happy people.<ref name=becker/>{{rp|192-199}}

==Exemplars==
{{anchor|FTX}}
===Sam Bankman-Fried===
[[File:MIT Bitcoin Expo 2022 - Sam Bankman.png|thumb|right|165px|Bankman-Fried remotely attending the MIT Bitcoin Expo 2022]] 
{{cquote|I don’t want to say no book is ever worth reading, but I actually do believe something pretty close to that. … If you wrote a book, you fucked up, and it should have been a six-paragraph blog post.|||SBF, super-genius<ref name=roberts>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/29/sam-bankman-fried-reading-effective-altruism/ Sam Bankman-Fried doesn’t read. That tells us everything.] by Molly Roberts (November 29, 2022 at 4:11 p.m. EST) ''The Washington Post''.</ref><ref>[https://www.sequoiacap.com/article/sam-bankman-fried-spotlight/ Sam Bankman-Fried Has a Savior Complex—And Maybe You Should Too] by Adam Fisher (September 22, 2022) ''Sequoia Capital'' (archived from 10 Nov 2022 09:58:25 UTC).</ref>}}
Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) {{lived|1992}}, owner of [[cryptocurrency]] exchange FTX until bankruptcy in November 2022, was a vocal (with a voice that could drive a monk to insanity, no less) proponent of EA and had pledged to give away his fortune to charity, signing the Giving Pledge.<ref name=pledge>[https://givingpledge.org/pledgers Pledge Signatories] ''Giving Pledge''.</ref><ref name=wang>[https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/06/01/ftx-founder-sam-bankman-fried-signs-billionaires-giving-pledge/ FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried Signs Billionaires’ Giving Pledge: The crypto billionaire has promised to give away the majority of his wealth to philanthropic causes.] by Tracy Wang (Jun 1, 2022) ''CoinDesk''.</ref>{{efn|The Giving Pledge is not formally associated with the effective altruism movement, having been founded by [[Bill Gates]] and Warren Buffett in 2016. It does function with a similar unstated goal: reputational whitewashing of billionaires. Other notable signatories of the Giving Pledge include:<ref name=pledge/>
*[[Michael Bloomberg]]
*{{wpl|Michael Milken}} — creator of the junk bond, convicted of stock transaction violations and tax evasion (22 months sentence), winner of the first [[Ig Nobel Prize]] in economics
*[[Elon Musk]]
*[[Mark Zuckerberg]].}} It's unclear whether SBF ever gave money to charity, though he did make a lot of political contributions (likely to fend off crypto regulation)<ref name=wang/> allegedly illegally using other people's money.<ref>[https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/how-serious-are-sam-bankman-frieds-alleged-campaign-finance-violations How Serious Are Sam Bankman-Fried’s Alleged Campaign-Finance Violations? He gave to Democrats, and claims that he also gave to Republicans through dark-money donations. But the money may have never been his to give.] by Sheelah Kolhatkar (January 11, 2023) ''The New Yorker''.</ref> SBF's crypto empire spectacularly came crashing down in November 2022, due to his self-dealing and high-risk (leveraged) [[Gambling|gambles]] and he did claim to have given a lot of moola to Jane Street Capital, both founded by his mentor (so basically self-dealing).<ref>[https://archive.ph/xy4MR Sam Bankman-Fried Has a Savior Complex—And Maybe You Should Too] by Adam Fisher (September 22, 2022) ''Sequoia Capital'' (archived from 8 Nov 2022 21:02:30 UTC).</ref> After the crash, which left SBF with essentially nothing, it was revealed that he was living a lavish and debauched lifestyle in the Bahamas<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/11/24/ftx-bahamas-albany-fried/ FTX’s Bahamas crypto empire: Stimulants, subterfuge and a spectacular collapse: Crypto wunderkind Sam Bankman-Fried had promised the island paradise a path to financial glory. His meltdown has left some Bahamians worried about the ripple effects.] by Tim Craig et al. (November 24, 2022 at 9:12 a.m. EST) ''The Washington Post''.</ref> while he was hypothetically donating to charity at some point in the distant future. Trial testimony and his own statements indicated that SBF had an extreme desire for risk, even to the point of risking other people's lives without their consent,<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/13/sam-bankman-fried-trial-effective-altruism/ The coin flip that could convict Sam Bankman-Fried] by Jason Willick (October 13, 2023 at 6:00 a.m. EDT) ''The Washington Post''.</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3mFAZCEp8A&t=1800s Sam Bankman-Fried on Arbitrage and Altruism | Conversations with Tyler] (Mar 9, 2022) ''YouTube''.</ref> something that would seem to be antithetical to the idea of altruism. The bookkeeping for FTX, as it turned out, was close to non-existent<ref name=roberts/> (Was it a six-paragraph blog post?).
{{cquote|By number of [[Ponzi]] schemes there are way more in crypto, kinda per capita, than in other places. But by size of actual Ponzis, I’m not sure that it is particularly unusual. It’s just like a ton of extremely small ones.|||SBF in May 2022, foreshadowing the crash of FTX<ref>[https://www.ft.com/content/83bc681a-a0f9-43bb-b627-c6dacae4a0a3 Crypto billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried: ‘I got involved with no clue what a blockchain was’] by Joshua Oliver (May 13, 2022) ''Financial Times'' (archived from 13 May 2022 11:39:29 UTC).</ref>}}

In November 2023, SBF was convicted of 2 counts of wire fraud, 4 counts of conspiracy to commit fraud and 1 count of conspiracy to commit money laundering in connection with FTX and the affiliated Alameda Research cryptocurrency trading fund.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/11/02/sbf-bankman-fried-trial-ftx  Bankman-Fried convicted on all charges after weeks-long criminal trial: The co-founder of the FTX crypto exchange was accused of one of the largest financial frauds in history.] by Eli Tan & Tory Newmyer (November 2, 2023) ''The Washington Post''.</ref> In 2024, SBF was sentenced to 25 years in prison.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/28/sam-bankman-fried-sentenced-prison-ftx-fraud ‘He knew it was wrong’: Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years in prison over FTX fraud: Judge orders disgraced crypto mogul to forfeit $11bn in assets and says he showed no remorse for his crimes] by Nick Robins-Early (28 Mar 2024 14.38 EDT) ''The Guardian''.</ref>

Lest one think that SBF was somehow an aberration within EA, both of SBF's parents were involved with FTX. His parents are both law professors at Stanford University, with his father Joseph Bankman specializing in tax law, and his mother Barbara Fried specializing in legal ethics and wrote a book that supports consequentialist philosophies!<ref>''Facing Up to Scarcity: The Logic and Limits of Nonconsequentialist Thought'' by Barbara H. Fried (2020) Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198847874.</ref> SBF grew up immersed in utilitarianist thought, and fully embraced utilitarianism in a blog post.<ref name=faux>''Number Go Up: Inside Crypto's Wild Rise and Staggering Fall'' by Zeke Faux (2023) Crown Currency. ISBN 0593443810.</ref>{{rp|81-82}}

Both of SBF's parents have been sued by FTX creditors to recover funds, but it is unclear if they will also face criminal charges.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/11/11/sam-bankman-fried-parents-ftx/ Bankman-Fried’s parents could face their own legal perils, experts say: Following their son’s conviction on fraud and conspiracy charges, the fate of the Stanford Law professors remains an open question] by Tory Newmyer & Eli Tan (November 11, 2023 at 7:00 a.m. EST) ''The Washington Post''.</ref>

Despite being warned by three different people in 2018 and 2019 that SBF was "unethical, duplicitous, and negligent in his role as CEO of Alameda Research", MacAskill took a leadership position within the EA-oriented 'philanthropic' FTX Future Fund, which included self-dealing into MacAskill's other EA organizations.<ref name=becker/>{{rp|31-34}}<ref>[https://time.com/6262810/sam-bankman-fried-effective-altruism-alameda-ftx/ Effective Altruist Leaders Were Repeatedly Warned About Sam Bankman-Fried Years Before FTX Collapsed] by Charlotte Alter (March 15, 2023 7:00 AM EDT) ''Time''.</ref>

===Ben Delo===
Ben Delo {{lived|1984}} was also courted by MacAskill to join the EA movement.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20221114054159/https://twitter.com/KerryLVaughan/status/1591508700128313344 Will's outrage about the FTX situation is difficult to take seriously for three reasons: (1) SBF is not the first disgraced crypto billionaire that Will has vouched for (2) Will was longtime friends with SBF (3) Will was warned about SBF's unethical behavior as far back as 2018] by Kerry Vaughn (November 12, 2022) ''Twitter'' (archived from November 14, 2022).</ref><ref>[https://givingpledge.org/pledger?pledgerId=383 Pledge Letter] by Ben Delo (15 April 2019) ''The Giving Pledge''.</ref> Delo became a member of MacAskill's Giving What We Can,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20220814013015/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/research/co-funding-partnership-with-ben-delo/ Co-funding Partnership with Ben Delo] by Holden Karnofsky (November 07, 2019) ''Open Philosophy'' (archived from August 14, 2022).</ref> and signed the Giving Pledge.<ref name=pledge/> Subsequently Delo was convicted of willfully failing to implement anti-money laundering measures at the crypto exchange BitMEX, sentenced to 30-months probation and ordered to pay a $10 million fine.<ref>[https://blockworks.co/news/bitmex-co-founder-delo-gets-30-months-probation-avoids-jail-time BitMEX Co-Founder Delo Gets 30 Months Probation, Avoids Jail Time: BitMEX co-founder Ben Delo will carry out his sentence of 30 months of probation without being confined at home] by Sebastian Sinclair (June 15, 2022 06:18 pm) ''Blockworks''.</ref>

===Sexual harassment and sexual assault===
{{main|Rape}}
There have been many reports of sexual harassment and sexual assault within effective altruism.<ref name=becker/>{{rp|141-143}} Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, an AI and robotics researcher, wrote:<ref>[https://archive.ph/45KoU#selection-623.0-623.221 Predatory sexual behavior is extremely common in EA…] by @keerthpg (7:38 PM · Nov 12, 2022) ''Twitter'' (archived from 1 Dec 2025 03:39:56 UTC).</ref>
{{cquote|Predatory sexual behavior is extremely common in EA circles and the power enjoyed by these actors, the rate of occurrence and a lack of visible push back equals to a tacit and somewhat widespread backing for this conduct.}}
Kathy Forth, who was part of the EA community, alleged that multiple members of the LessWrong and EA communities had sexually abused her, which she documented in her [[suicide]] note. Scott Siskind, who has been described as a central figure in EA, was dismissive of Forth's claims ([[victim blaming]]) and of the idea of [[rape culture]] in general. His statements are particularly shocking and contrary to professional ethics because Siskind is a [[psychiatrist]].<ref name=becker/>{{rp|142-143}}

==The poor and cryptocurrency==
Given that EA has at times been about the rich helping the poor, it is noteworthy to look at the cryptocurrency entanglements of EA and the effect of EA on the poor. Besides the crypto debacles of SBF and Delo, [[Elon Musk]] has promoted cryptocurrency<ref>[https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/elon-musk-twitter-logo-doge-dogecoin-meme-1235572343/ "Why Did Elon Musk Change the Twitter Logo to the Dogecoin Cryptocurrency Meme?"] by Todd Spangler, Variety, 2023 April 3</ref><ref>[https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.581639/gov.uscourts.nysd.581639.1.0.pdf Keith Johnson v. Elon Musk,] United States District Court Southern District of New York, Case No 1:22-cv-5037</ref> and EA,<ref>[https://www.philanthropy.com/article/is-elon-muk-on-board-with-effective-altruism Is Elon Musk on Board With ‘Effective Altruism?] by Nicholas G. Evans (April 21, 2023) ''The Chronicle of Philanthropy''.</ref> and MacAskill advised SBF before he created FTX. MacAskill also promoted the idea of intentionally working for an immoral organization so as to earn money to donate to charity. MacAskill gave an example to justify this, that of [[Nazi]] {{wpl|Oskar Schindler}} who saved [[Jews]] from the [[Holocaust]].<ref>[https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2013/06/11/doing-harm-through-law/ Doing Harm Through Law?] by William MacAskill (June 11, 2013) ''The Petrie-Flom Center Staff Health Law Policy, Harvard Law''.</ref> This was an example of a Nazi who later happened to rescue Jews, not of someone who became a Nazi so that he could rescue Jews. What MacAskill is trying to justify is the latter, e.g. help destroy the planet by working in the [[fossil fuel]] industry while promising to donate some money to an anti-[[climate change]] charity.

Cryptocurrency has been directly and indirectly associated with various forms of impoverishment through criminality:
*[[Pump-and-dump]] schemes<ref>[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jofi.12903 Is Bitcoin Really Untethered?] by John M. Griffin & Amin Shams (2020) ''The Journal of Finance'' 75(4):1913-1964.</ref>
*Theft of poor people's crypto from the Axie Infinity game<ref>[https://forkast.news/headlines/earnings-axie-infinity-below-minimum-wage/ Earnings for Axie Infinity players drop below Philippines minimum wage] by Lachlan Keller (16 November 2021) ''forkast''.</ref><ref name=faux/>{{rp|121-128}}
*[[Human trafficking]] and [[Slavery|enslavement]] of poor people, then forcing them to con others into fraudulent crypto investments that depend on [[Tether]] (text flirting followed by enticement into fraudulent crypto investments, a method known as "pig butchering").<ref name=faux/>{{rp|172-199}}

==Climate change denialism==
{{cquote|MacAskill fall into the trop of being 'foolishly wise. Wise fools [are] those who recognise the limits of their knowledge and therefore are able to take some account of what they don't know. I think of the opposite as the foolish wise, very clever people whose erudition and wide book-learning lead them however to inadquately account for the 'unknown unknowns.'|||Andrew Watson, climate scientist<ref name=becker/>{{rp|156}}}}
The strange rationale for working in the fossil fuel industry would seem to be based on the specific kind of climate change denialism that is common within EA, that climate change is real, but that its dangers are overstated and could not cause civilization to collapse. MacAskill and the other original proponent of EA, Toby Ord. Ord rated the risk from of human [[Extinction event|extinction from climate change]] in the next century as only 1 in 1000, compared to what he thinks is the main threat of extinction is the hypothetical [[artificial general intelligence]] at 1 in 6 (admitted by Ord as [[PIDOOMA]]: he got it from AI, not from actual scientific research that could be cited). This very low estimate for climate change catastrophe would seem to be based on Ord's misunderstanding of climate change models.<ref name=becker/>{{rp|152-156}}<ref name=macaskill/>{{rp|136}} Climate scientist {{wpl|Andy Watson (scientist)|Andrew Watson}} was one of the people interviewed for MacAskill's book ''What We Owe the Future''. Regarding MacAskill's stony refusal to accept [[scientific consensus]] on the risk of climate change, Watson had this to say:<ref name=becker/>{{rp|156}}
{{cquote|MacAskill falls into the trap of being "foolishly wise. Wise fools [are] those who recognise the limits of their knowledge and therefore are able to take some account of what they don't know. I think of the opposite as the foolish wise, very clever people whose erudition and wide book-learning lead them however to inadequately accound for the 'unknown unknowns.}}

In addition, climate change would not have to cause human extinction to prevent any chance of a future where humans are numerous and prosperous: a relictual population of humans living in underground cities in Siberia and [[Antarctica]], surviving mosly on algae are are unlikely to colonize the [[galaxy]].

==Gallery==
<gallery>
File:Ben Delo on stage at The Spectator's "Who's afraid of Bitcoin?" conference.jpg|Delo, promoting [[Bitcoin]] in 2018
File:William MacAskill Portrait 2018.jpg|MacAskill in 2018
File:Toby Ord.jpg|Ord in 2019
</gallery>

==See also==
{{fun}}
*[[ChatGPT]]<ref>[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-22/effective-altruism-s-role-in-the-openai-chaos-explained What’s Effective Altruism? What Does It Mean for AI?] by Saritha Rai & Ellen Huet (November 22, 2023 at 9:17 PM UTC) ''Bloomberg''.</ref>
*[[Pascal's wager]]

==External links==
*[https://www.longtermism-hub.com/ Longtermism Hub] — various critiques of longtermism specifically 
*''[https://barbaraoakley.com/books/pathological-altruism/ Pathological altruism]'' — a book that's critical of related ideas

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note|2}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:Billionaires]]
[[Category:Consequentialism]]
[[Category:Convicted felons]]
[[Category:Cryptocurrency]]
[[Category:Cults]]
[[Category:Deceit]]
[[Category:Futurism]]
[[Category:Global warming denialists]]
[[Category:LessWrong]]
[[Category:Libertarianism]]
[[Category:Longtermism]]
[[Category:Oligarchic escapes]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Categories: Billionaires, Consequentialism, Convicted felons, Cryptocurrency, Cults, Deceit, Futurism, Global warming denialists, LessWrong, Libertarianism, Longtermism, Oligarchic escapes, Philosophy