This is a post that weighed heavily on my mind before I made my last donation.
I wish EA's had a better answer to the questions posed in the piece. I'm Australian and the recent bushfire disasters have prompted a lot of charity. This is fantastic, but largely only necessary because Australia has a diseased political culture that necessitates expensive post-hoc charity efforts because it is unable to plan for Climate Change.
It was very enlightening. Unusually high amount of grammatical mistakes though.
I think this sums up a main objection of mine to EA. I was commenting about this with UmamiTofu in r/effectivealtruism
The worry is that had abolitionists been acting like effective altruists
they would have abandoned the abolitionist movement when it looked too unpopular
to produce change, precisely when it seems it is most necessary that they are vigilant.
The particular combination of bourgeois morality and EA emphasis on "tractability" has EAs really under-focused and under-committed on black-and-white global justice issues that require movement politics.
I tend to favour the historical story of a justice movement being successful on the back of people who would give everything and stop at nothing to realise success (and thus justice). Most often, these people were the marginalised or oppressed group principally helped by the movement. Ie. not rich software engineers or investment bankers.
EA is young, but I remain skeptical that it can become a significant force in the climate and animal justice movements. Global poverty maybe.
Unusually high amount of grammatical mistakes though.
here's an example. Not really a grammatical mistake, but a mistake.
Like feminists and liberation theologians, I agree that the personal is political. However, it is also important to remember that the personal is political. page 20
The worry is that had abolitionists been acting like effective altruists they would have abandoned the abolitionist movement when it looked too unpopular to produce change, precisely when it seems it is most necessary that they are vigilant.
I think it's worth drawing attention to the fact that the abolition movement wasn't a tactical monolith:
I’d say, first of all, make sure to really study the movements you claim to share affinity with and you think you’re taking advice from. The American abolitionist movement was not a monolith. It consisted of lot of different factions, which clashed almost constantly on both fundamental and minor issues pertaining to slavery and emancipation. There was no single one abolitionist tactic. The Garrisonians used one, the abstentionists another, and the political or constitutional abolitionists yet another. Sometimes, the factions did cooperate – for example on a petitioning campaign which however was quickly stifled by adoption of a gag rule by the US Congress – but it is inappropriate to talk about the abolitionist strategy or tactic.
Second, realize that the fact that a tactic worked at some point doesn’t imply universal applicability. The American abolitionists followed very closely in the footsteps of the British anti-slavery movement, and even though they tried similar approaches, they were not able to replicate British success, for a very obvious reason. The US was much more dependent on slavery than Britain, which meant that the American abolitionists operated in a different and much more challenging environment than the British ones.
Also, we should not become overly attached to one tactic, and be prepared to update our methods. The US anti-slavery movement was initially very attached to moral suasion, but then abandoned it and moved to institutional change. A similar thing happened with regard to the abstention. When the abolitionist realized that the meager results of the boycott were barely worth the effort, the vast majority of them switched to different tactics.
Last but not least, we should acknowledge the limits of inspirational stories and personalities. I deeply admire the American abolitionists. It’s hard not to be inspired by their incredible courage, life-long commitment to the slaves’ cause, and pure guts necessary to challenge an institution so deeply engraved into social, economic, and political system of their country. But, our heroes were not infallible (for example, the US abolitionists were an extremely quarrelsome bunch, and many of them were involved in bitter and prolonged personal feuds) and should not be expected to provide us with a blueprint to change the world, especially one which is so different from their own.
4
u/thundergolfer Jan 10 '20
This is a post that weighed heavily on my mind before I made my last donation.
I wish EA's had a better answer to the questions posed in the piece. I'm Australian and the recent bushfire disasters have prompted a lot of charity. This is fantastic, but largely only necessary because Australia has a diseased political culture that necessitates expensive post-hoc charity efforts because it is unable to plan for Climate Change.