I was recently asked to contribute a 150-word text about my relation to effective altruism (EA), for publication in a pamphlet-of-sorts along with similar texts from other supporters of EA. I submitted the text below. After a couple of rounds of email exchange with the editor about how my text could be made less controversial we came to a standstill, and the text was rejected. I nevertheless like it, so am happy to share it here, with URL links added for your convenience:
-
About a decade ago I began my mid-career shift from being a typical ivory tower mathematics professor towards an increasing focus on AI safety, existential risk and related topics. This move was largely driven by the EA-like idea of wanting to address the world's most pressing issues. Yet the EA movement appeared on my radar only gradually. Initially I was skeptical, as ranking ways to do good in terms of efficiency reminded me of Bjorn Lomborg’s ploy that we shouldn’t fight climate change because fighting malaria is more cost effective. Of course there are many things we ought to do! But when in 2017 I read Will MacAskill’s Doing Good Better, I realized that current EA thinking is less naive than I thought. I have since then become increasingly impressed by all the good theoretical and practical work done in EA, and I now consider myself a warm supporter of both the movement and its core ideas.
I know you have expressed sympathy for the animal welfare part of the EA movement. How do you balance altruism towards humans versus animals? Especially given that helping humans can easily hurt animals.
SvaraRaderaIn practice I don't, although I have marginally improved my eating habits the last few years. The question of how one should go about the balancing act you suggest is very difficult, especially given how little we know about animal consciousness, and I cannot pretend to give an adequate answer.
Radera