![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The problem with effective altruism (EA) like that of GiveWell goes further than the novelty problem. I do agree that charities should be graded on what they're actually accomplishing. But the focus of effective altruism appears to be on: saving the most lives at the least cost per life. I question whether this is the correct focus.
Current projections are that Africa is going to nearly quadruple its population during the 21st Century, from about 1 billion to about 4 billion. Africa is already the poorest continent, which is why so many EA proponents focus on it -- it needs the most help in saving lives, and you get the most bang for your buck in saving lives in Africa. But then what? You've saved all these lives and have now added to the overpopulation problem in Africa, and then even more people are living in poverty in Africa, adding to the global overpopulation problem, adding to the global inequality problem. And then if we were to somehow bring up all those 4 billion Africans to an EU/US standard of living, we're absolutely cooking the planet and wrecking its remaining biodiversity -- if such an expansion of living standards were even possible.
In my own analysis, the biggest problem the world faces is overpopulation, and I focus my charitable giving on providing contraception and abortion to those who want it but cannot afford it. I'm focusing on reducing births, not saving lives. For the good of us all, for the good of other species, for the good of the planet's ecology. Choosing the correct goal is more important than being "effective" at the incorrect goal.
So, first choose the best goal, then choose the best methods for achieving that goal. I don't care whether you call this effective altruism or something else. Calling yourself effective does not make it so. But do look at the effects your charity has on the world.
Current projections are that Africa is going to nearly quadruple its population during the 21st Century, from about 1 billion to about 4 billion. Africa is already the poorest continent, which is why so many EA proponents focus on it -- it needs the most help in saving lives, and you get the most bang for your buck in saving lives in Africa. But then what? You've saved all these lives and have now added to the overpopulation problem in Africa, and then even more people are living in poverty in Africa, adding to the global overpopulation problem, adding to the global inequality problem. And then if we were to somehow bring up all those 4 billion Africans to an EU/US standard of living, we're absolutely cooking the planet and wrecking its remaining biodiversity -- if such an expansion of living standards were even possible.
In my own analysis, the biggest problem the world faces is overpopulation, and I focus my charitable giving on providing contraception and abortion to those who want it but cannot afford it. I'm focusing on reducing births, not saving lives. For the good of us all, for the good of other species, for the good of the planet's ecology. Choosing the correct goal is more important than being "effective" at the incorrect goal.
So, first choose the best goal, then choose the best methods for achieving that goal. I don't care whether you call this effective altruism or something else. Calling yourself effective does not make it so. But do look at the effects your charity has on the world.
