This is the theme of the latest Free Press essay, here is one quote:
I think I understand the limits of effective altruism, and I have already limited many others in an hour-long dialogue with MacAskill, perhaps the father of the movement, in 2022.
But, within limits, I think more effective altruism would be a good thing.
First of all, I am not worried that human desires will now be diminished or ignored. That desire dominates the politics of all Western countries and many others. If someone tried to introduce a bill to improve shrimp welfare, I don’t think it would get a single vote in Congress. In the meantime, we still treat animals with too much cruelty, relative to the improvements we can make (you can start by eating less chicken and more beef, because the demand for beef kills less cows, given the larger size of cows.) It would be better if people pay at least partially heed to strictures effective altruism in this and many other points.
What about AI? Yes, artificial intelligence will fundamentally change our world. Many associated with effective altruism may exaggerate its effect, or perceive a high risk of harm without sufficient evidence. However, it would be good if we pay attention to AI issues, and AI safety in particular. Score another point for effective altruism, at least if you make marginal adjustments rather than extreme ones.
As for aid to Africa and poor countries everywhere, I’m not sure what the policy should be, but foreign aid is now less than 1 percent of the US federal budget, and the Trump administration is making it back. We hardly sacrifice seed corn in America to raise the rest of the world. In the meantime, if you’re supporting some charitable public health program in Africa and saving a few lives instead of donating to Harvard, that’s probably a better decision.
Again, effective altruism is true, even if you don’t follow the recommendations.
Recommended.