The Illusion of Effective Altruism: A New Religion or a Flawed Ideology?
Written on
Introduction to Effective Altruism
In hopes of leveraging Mars’ low gravity to shed some pounds, Elon Musk intends to waste tens of billions of dollars on a venture to the red planet.
Much like traditional religions, Effective Altruism (EA) aims to provide its followers with a straightforward moral compass and a set of guidelines to navigate their lives. Adherents earn points for compliance and face implicit penalties for noncompliance. This ideology, like many religious systems, combines a grand vision with guilt to influence behavior. At its core, EA promises a facade of mathematical precision, akin to how the Roman Catholic Church once calculated sin. However, EA originated from a sincere intention to effect positive change in the world.
The irony lies in its conception by two naive and inexperienced students of Moral Philosophy at Oxford, William MacAskill and Toby Ord, who seemingly overlooked the fundamental lesson of moral philosophy: morality is inherently relative. By disregarding the complexities illustrated by the well-known Trolley-Car Problem, these well-intentioned yet shortsighted individuals laid the foundation of their new belief system on a seemingly simple mathematical formula.
The Fundamental Assumptions of EA
This equation is based on several crucial assumptions that MacAskill and Ord appear to have failed to scrutinize thoroughly. Firstly, they posit that every individual has a moral obligation to enhance the welfare of humanity. Secondly, they assume that “improvement” can be easily measured using an Excel spreadsheet. To quantify this improvement, EA’s creators devised two metrics: the value of a pain-free, fulfilling year of life, and its opposite. While many readers may wonder how such metrics can be accurately defined given the diversity of human experiences, EA advocates largely ignore this question, accepting the simplistic logic underpinning their metrics without question. If it fits neatly into an Excel model, it must be valid!
Equipped with these two seemingly rational metrics, EA supporters are encouraged to optimize their contributions. For instance, someone who donates 10% of her modest income to charity is deemed to be acting immorally by EA standards if she could instead secure a high-paying job and donate 10% of that much larger salary to “effective” charities. This philosophy prioritizes financial success over acts of kindness within one’s community.
As a result, this notion that “wealth is virtuous” drew a plethora of affluent individuals who justified their relentless pursuit of success through EA. This mirrors the moral justification once offered by the Catholic Church to wealthy donors, who would receive absolution through generous contributions. The message echoes the 1980s ethos of “greed is good,” but extends beyond mere market efficiency to a more extensive moral justification.
The Dangers of Simplistic Logic
While the adoption of a new belief system by wealthy individuals may seem innocuous, EA proponents have taken their ideology further. When one believes that the world's complexities can be distilled into a simple equation devoid of countless critical variables, it’s only logical to follow that equation to its extreme, leading to significant global ramifications.
To illustrate this, consider the following propositions that have shaped EA’s narrative over the past two decades.
- All human lives hold equal value (initially a benign and appealing idea, though later revisions would complicate this claim).
- This valuation extends beyond the living; it encompasses everyone who has ever existed and everyone who will exist, despite the impossibility of calculating future populations due to countless unknown variables.
- Economic inefficiency arises from death, making the prevention of death the paramount concern for EA supporters.
- Consequently, since future generations are expected to vastly outnumber current and past generations, the focus should be on enhancing the lives of hypothetical future beings rather than addressing the needs of those currently alive.
In essence, EA advocates prioritize grand ambitions of preserving future lives over immediate concerns, leading to the troubling notion that we should neglect present-day issues for distant, speculative outcomes.
This perspective contains two critical flaws: (a) the unpredictability of future lives renders such calculations meaningless, and (b) it overlooks the principle of Net Present Value, which suggests that future outcomes are inherently less valuable than present ones due to uncertainties. By ignoring this foundational economic principle, EA fails to justify its lack of immediate action.
Consequently, the central message of EA essentially encourages neglect of current suffering in favor of lofty dreams of future colonization, akin to spinning prayer wheels while disregarding pressing needs.
The Absurdity of Longtermism
As previously mentioned, EA is difficult to satirize, largely because it embodies absurdity in its own right. It shares a logical lineage with historical claims made by religious zealots who rationalized heinous acts in the name of salvation.
By focusing on hypothetical outcomes in the distant future to excuse inaction today, EA followers may be deceiving themselves. This delusion mirrors the self-righteousness often seen in fanatical movements, where the guise of morality serves as a shield for the self-serving actions of affluent individuals. Instead of directing resources toward addressing societal challenges, they funnel vast sums into fantastical visions of intergalactic colonization, all in the name of averting potential future calamities.
Such lack of creativity is disheartening, yet it is characteristic of those who, convinced they possess a singular truth, act in irrational ways. While some are drawn to absurd belief systems, others may find themselves captivated by the supposed certainties of EA, mistaking mathematical models for truth.
The emergence of “longtermism,” a belief system that seeks to justify extravagant spending on speculative galactic ventures, embodies this mindset. Dismissing real-world barriers and questioning the desirability of such endeavors seem to be off the table for its adherents, who instead indulge in dreams of saving lives hundreds of millions of years into the future.
Notably, longtermists assert that technology poses unprecedented risks to humanity’s future, yet their solution is more technology. This argument, propagated by wealthy individuals like Musk, highlights a profound misunderstanding of both technology and human nature.
The Influence of Longtermists
The lengths to which some EA supporters go to rationalize their ideas are astonishing. For example, philosopher Nick Bostrom suggests that every moment we delay in colonizing our galaxy costs potential lives. Rather than dismissing such absurd assertions, they are taken seriously by influential circles, fostering a culture of uncritical acceptance.
As this collective delusion grows, the potential for dire consequences increases. Reducing aid for those in immediate need in favor of supporting fantastical projects is one such outcome. The shift from addressing real-world issues like climate change to prioritizing plans for Mars colonization demonstrates a troubling blend of arrogance and naivety.
Bostrom goes further, advocating for total surveillance to prevent mass extinction—a proposal that reflects a disconnection from reality and misunderstanding of AI systems. Such ideas, lacking in practical insight, nevertheless influence governments and organizations, echoing the zealotry that once justified eugenics movements.
The implications of longtermism extend into policy-making and ethics, where simplistic Excel models justify prioritizing lives based on potential contributions to future society. This perspective can lead to chilling conclusions, such as the idea that lifting individuals out of poverty is morally wrong because it could negatively impact the environment.
Conclusion: The Perils of Effective Altruism
It is imperative that longtermism be scrutinized and discredited before it gains further traction. Like other ideological systems, it cloaks harmful instincts in the guise of altruism, only revealing its true nature upon closer examination.
For those who seek to live in a society where privacy is criminalized and algorithms dictate morality, longtermism may seem appealing. Similarly, billionaires looking for a moral façade for their wealth find comfort in this ideology. However, for the average individual, Effective Altruism and its offshoot, longtermism, could herald a future devoid of empathy and humanity.
A discussion on how Effective Altruism and its underlying principles affect real-world altruistic efforts.
Beth Barnes presents a TEDx talk exploring Effective Altruism and its implications for society.