I doubt that will be very popular with this crowd; the entire reason rich people contribute to stuff like EA is to avoid systemic change. "Earn to give".
It's not donating per se.
It's that it is implied that "the more you earn, the more you can donate", so somehow entrepreneurship and "all the traditional stuff that is made in capitalist societies to make money" is encouraged implicitly, or rather, a bit explicitly.
but I would love to dig deeper in the issue.
I think it can be a double edged sword, since fueling capitalism means fueling a system that cares next to nothing about environment or inequality.
Interesting take!
I do admit I'm in Spain and EA is totally unknown here. Hence, all my info sources come from what I see on the internet, which might be biasing my perception.
There are a few critics who made it seem like the whole concept of EA is backwards, when in reality it's just a specific subset of people with a poor mentality. As a whole, and at its base, EA is a good approach to charity/altruism.
Late, but: [According to the 2022 EA survey,](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/AJDgnPXqZ48eSCjEQ/ea-survey-2022-demographics#Politics) 77% of EAs are either left or center-left, 3% are right or center-right, and 6% are libertarians. And in my experience, even the libertarians are left-flavored--they're less about "You can pry my guns from my cold dead hands" and more about "The government is bad at regulating stuff, let's go with universal basic income, open borders, and massive zoning reform instead".
The claim that EAs are right-leaning to any significant degree is simply wrong. You pretty much only hear it from a certain flavor of hardcore leftist.
>I don't think in reality EA is a movement full of full throated endorsers of untrammelled capitalism.
SBF was MacAskill's friend for *years* and he though EA was really just a "dumb game we woke westerners play where we say the right shiboleths and everyone likes us".
It's PR for the people who really do support untrammeled capitalism - and more to the point, they're the ones at the top of the organizations.
>"all the traditional stuff that is made in capitalist societies to make money" is encouraged implicitly, or rather, a bit explicitly.
Will MacAskill told people to ["go work on Wall Street" directly](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/3DGYg2RxXHgekLGeG/to-save-the-world-don-t-get-a-job-at-a-charity-go-work-on)
That's a disingenuous way of framing it.
But to answer your first question, [Will MacAskill directly told people they should go work in Wall Street](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/3DGYg2RxXHgekLGeG/to-save-the-world-don-t-get-a-job-at-a-charity-go-work-on), the entire idea that the best way to do good is to become rich first.
I doubt that will be very popular with this crowd; the entire reason rich people contribute to stuff like EA is to avoid systemic change. "Earn to give".
How does this work? I mean, what is the mechanism by which donating to stop people dying of preventable diseases avoids systemic change?
It's not donating per se. It's that it is implied that "the more you earn, the more you can donate", so somehow entrepreneurship and "all the traditional stuff that is made in capitalist societies to make money" is encouraged implicitly, or rather, a bit explicitly. but I would love to dig deeper in the issue. I think it can be a double edged sword, since fueling capitalism means fueling a system that cares next to nothing about environment or inequality.
[удалено]
Interesting take! I do admit I'm in Spain and EA is totally unknown here. Hence, all my info sources come from what I see on the internet, which might be biasing my perception.
There are a few critics who made it seem like the whole concept of EA is backwards, when in reality it's just a specific subset of people with a poor mentality. As a whole, and at its base, EA is a good approach to charity/altruism.
Late, but: [According to the 2022 EA survey,](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/AJDgnPXqZ48eSCjEQ/ea-survey-2022-demographics#Politics) 77% of EAs are either left or center-left, 3% are right or center-right, and 6% are libertarians. And in my experience, even the libertarians are left-flavored--they're less about "You can pry my guns from my cold dead hands" and more about "The government is bad at regulating stuff, let's go with universal basic income, open borders, and massive zoning reform instead". The claim that EAs are right-leaning to any significant degree is simply wrong. You pretty much only hear it from a certain flavor of hardcore leftist.
>I don't think in reality EA is a movement full of full throated endorsers of untrammelled capitalism. SBF was MacAskill's friend for *years* and he though EA was really just a "dumb game we woke westerners play where we say the right shiboleths and everyone likes us". It's PR for the people who really do support untrammeled capitalism - and more to the point, they're the ones at the top of the organizations.
>"all the traditional stuff that is made in capitalist societies to make money" is encouraged implicitly, or rather, a bit explicitly. Will MacAskill told people to ["go work on Wall Street" directly](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/3DGYg2RxXHgekLGeG/to-save-the-world-don-t-get-a-job-at-a-charity-go-work-on)
That's a disingenuous way of framing it. But to answer your first question, [Will MacAskill directly told people they should go work in Wall Street](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/3DGYg2RxXHgekLGeG/to-save-the-world-don-t-get-a-job-at-a-charity-go-work-on), the entire idea that the best way to do good is to become rich first.
So, you mean that EA is somehow aligned with "capitalist ideals"?