Skip to content
Longterm Wiki
Back

Effective Altruism: Not as Bad as You Think - James Ozden

blog

Credibility Rating

2/5
Mixed(2)

Mixed quality. Some useful content but inconsistent editorial standards. Claims should be verified.

Rating inherited from publication venue: Substack

This 2022-2023 blog post is a practitioner-level defense of EA amid reputational fallout from FTX; relevant to AI safety audiences interested in EA funding ecosystems, movement credibility, and the governance of philanthropic power in the field.

Metadata

Importance: 30/100opinion piececommentary

Summary

James Özden defends Effective Altruism against post-FTX criticism, acknowledging legitimate concerns about donor power concentration and systemic change neglect while arguing that EA's concrete impacts—such as GiveWell directing $1B+ to save 150,000+ lives—are frequently overlooked by critics. He advocates for a pluralistic approach that appreciates EA's contributions without dismissing valid critiques.

Key Points

  • Post-FTX criticism of EA often mischaracterizes the broader community by conflating it with SBF's actions and 'longtermist' factions.
  • Legitimate critiques include donor power concentration, definitional disputes over 'effectiveness,' and neglect of systemic/root-cause interventions.
  • GiveWell has directed over $1B to poverty alleviation, with estimates of 150,000+ lives saved, demonstrating measurable EA impact.
  • Özden argues critics and EA proponents should adopt pluralism—recognizing multiple valid approaches to doing good rather than dismissing each other.
  • The FTX scandal, while damaging to EA's reputation, does not invalidate the broader movement's evidence-based charitable giving frameworks.

Cited by 2 pages

PageTypeQuality
EA GlobalOrganization38.0
FTXOrganization74.0

Cached Content Preview

HTTP 200Fetched Mar 15, 202619 KB
Effective Altruism: Not as bad as you think 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 Understanding Social Change 

 Subscribe Sign in Effective Altruism: Not as bad as you think

 We need a plurality of ways to do good

 James Özden Nov 24, 2022 21 Share It’s been a pretty hectic few weeks if you follow Effective Altruism, crypto, tech firms or basically any news. FTX, one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges in the world, recently lost all of its value , went bankrupt, and lost about $1 billion in customer funds. News has emerged that the CEO, Sam Bankman-Fried, might have been mishandling customer funds and that the mismanagement of money was far worse than in the collapse of energy giant Enron. This is pretty awful for a lot of people, whether it’s the approximately one million people who lost their crypto investments that were stored in FTX, or all the charities that are worried they will have to pay back any donations made by FTX-related entities (of which there was over $160 million). 

 Sam Bankman-Fried has openly spoken about Effective Altruism a fair bit in the past, and committed to giving away almost all of his wealth to charitable causes. For those who don’t know, Effective Altruism (or EA) is a research project and community that uses evidence and reason to do the most good. Tangibly, it’s a burgeoning intellectual movement with close to 10,000 engaged folks globally, across 70 countries (although mostly in the EU and US). People in the effective altruism community focus primarily on alleviating global poverty and diseases, reducing the suffering of animals used for food, and preventing existential risks from worst-case pandemics or misaligned artificial intelligence.  

 Thanks for reading Understanding Social Change! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

 Subscribe Due to the close association between Sam Bankman-Fried and Effective Altruism, EA has gotten a fair bit of criticism recently about potentially not being the ideal do-gooder project it set out to be. But I think some of these critiques miss the mark. Often, they criticise issues that don't actually exist in the community, but sound good. They also seem to glance over evidence that disputes their claims, such as the huge amount of effort that Effective Altruists have put towards improving the lives of some of the most poor people globally. For example, via GiveWell , an EA-aligned charity evaluator, over 110,000 donors have moved over $1 billion to charities helping people in extreme poverty, by providing malaria bed nets , direct cash transfers , or more . This is amazing. GiveWell thinks these actions will have saved over 150,000 lives ,

... (truncated, 19 KB total)
Resource ID: d9b652a2361d2d37 | Stable ID: MDE0ZDg5ND