Interview, Fireside Chat, Podcast
The core of effective altruism & how to argue for it | Benjamin Todd (2020)
- The podcast team anticipates that "bonus episodes" could evolve into a "regular feature" contingent on listener emails to podcast@80,000hours.org indicating enjoyment.
- External media coverage from approximately 2011 to 2016 is expected to continue dominating public understanding of effective altruism due to "millions of views," potentially eclipsing primary resources and reinforcing the perception that the movement equates to global health.
- Peter Singer is projected to remain significantly more famous than the effective altruism movement, currently receiving about 10 times the search traffic, and his "drowning child" thought experiment is expected to persist as a primary driver of the movement's public image.
- Resource allocation is anticipated to remain split, with approximately 30% directed toward "global health" while the majority funds other issues including existential risk, global priorities research, community building, factory farming reduction, criminal justice reform, and scientific research.
- Career shifts driven by effective altruism principles are estimated to see roughly 10% of individuals focusing on global health, a figure noted as lower than the proportion of financial resources allocated to that cause.
- The movement's activities are expected to maintain a distinction between the "intellectual project" of researching optimal helping methods and the "practical project" of addressing immediate problems.
- Future objections are predicted to challenge core premises regarding the "spread" of impact, the "identifiability" of high-impact actions, and the "novelty" of these actions, rather than focusing solely on specific interventions.
- Research is expected to prioritize determining the magnitude of impact differences between actions, addressing current gaps in published data, while investigating the "anti-correlation" between a cause's pressingness and the ability to make progress due to potential lack of resources.
- The "market for doing good" is expected to remain inefficient, with significant gaps in "global public goods" and long-term future generations left unfilled by institutions due to short-termism and market failures.
- Working on "very neglected" causes is expected to be justified by the high value of information provided by pioneers, even if immediate progress is difficult, as the first actor can provide critical data for future efforts.
- Framing discussions are expected to move away from relying heavily on "global health examples" to avoid misconceptions, given that this cause represents only about 30% of community resources, and instead emphasize the "intellectual project" to appeal to those interested in philosophical reasoning.
- Future research is expected to investigate three specific dimensions to clarify the movement's importance: the "pressingness" of problems, the "effectiveness" of interventions, and the "personal fit" required for individuals.
- Defining the movement is expected to avoid framing it as a "moral obligation" requiring large donations, instead focusing on finding the most effective use of resources for those who "do want to give."
- "Common sense" approaches guided by "epistemic humility" or "regression to the mean" are expected to often align with or push toward traditional, less impactful priorities, requiring effective altruism to navigate these counter-arguments.
- The "log normal distribution" of impact implies a small number of high-opportunity actions exist, but concerns remain that easy wins may be exhausted, potentially leaving remaining opportunities closer to the "median" in effectiveness.
- Future success depends on identifying "pressing global problems" that are "more neglected" than common sense suggests, while weighing the "anti-correlation" between pressingness and tractability.
- "Cluelessness" objections regarding the uncertainty of consequences are expected to persist but may be mitigated by the argument that systematic reasoning and evidence can still identify actions clearly superior to others.
- Long-termist issues are expected to require dedicated focus to address the interests of "future generations" who currently lack representation in institutional decision-making.
- Voting in U.S. "swing states" is expected to be highlighted as a specific, high-impact action for citizens due to the massive expected value of election outcomes, despite low individual probabilities of changing results.
- Career advice for "very talented people" is expected to include paths like accelerating "economic growth" or "innovation," though these are not viewed as the only best paths compared to existential risks like AI safety.
- Future definitions of effective altruism are expected to center on "seeking the best way to contribute to the common good" without mandating "evidence-backed" as a fundamental requirement, viewing it as a likely means rather than a definition.
- The "common good" is tentatively expected to be defined around an "impartial perspective" and "welfarist" framework focusing on welfare, though other values like "environmental integrity" may also matter.
- The "spread" of impact is expected to be a critical factor, with differences ranging from "twice as good" to "a thousand times better," making the movement significant even at the lower end of this spectrum.
- "Regression to the mean" is expected to correct overly optimistic estimates of neglected causes, but modest corrections are predicted to still leave room for significant impact.
- The "nonprofit sector" is expected to remain limited in efficiency, necessitating a broader effective altruism approach to fill gaps where institutions fail to cover "global public goods."
- Future efforts are expected to emphasize the "intellectual project" of debating what to do to attract audiences interested in reasoning, rather than just charity.
- "Global health" interventions like malaria nets are expected to remain "robust" baseline examples of high-impact action due to strong evidence, even as the movement expands to "hits-based" high-risk areas.
- Tensions between "personal passions" and "most neglected" causes are expected to persist, requiring the movement to find a "sweet spot" where motivation aligns with maximum effectiveness.
- "Global priorities research" is expected to shift toward explicitly addressing the "spectrum of how important effective altruism is" rather than treating it as a binary question.
- Campaigns and discussions from 2011 to 2016 regarding "giving what we can" and "drowning ponds" are expected to continue casting a long shadow over public perception, often leading to misunderstandings about the movement's scope.
- The community is expected to reject the notion that effective altruism requires a "moral obligation" to give, instead framing it as a strategy for those who choose to give.
- The "welfarist" definition of the "common good" is expected to be refined as research better defines "well-being" and "flourishing."
- The argument that "epistemic humility" pushes toward common sense is expected to be a strong counter-argument that effective altruism must address to justify the novelty and identifiability of high-impact actions.
- "Economic growth" is expected to be recognized as a valid high-impact path through innovation and policy, though "existential risks" like AI safety may be viewed as more pressing from a long-termist perspective.
- "Global health" is expected to remain a central "baseline" for measuring impact due to quantifiability, even as the movement includes climate change and AI safety.