As an environmentalist, even though I acknowledge that much extremely worthwhile research is being done by EA organisations, especially on AI safety and animal/fish/insect etc. welfare, some of the work being done in other areas makes me put my head in my hands and groan in despair. The profound ignorance in effective altruist circles of environmental science, like that of the planetary boundaries [1], for example, which demonstrates the absolute interconnectedness and interdependence of humans and the biosphere - their essential oneness - is depressing, as is the anthropocentrism [2] of the attitudes embedded in some moral philosophical positions. It could well lead to the death of the EA movement itself. Unless EA acknowledges the profundity of the multiple threats to our planetary life support systems, and incoporate ecocentrism into the EA core principles, it risks becoming irrelevant.
I also find it hard to reconcile EA's immensely praiseworthy work being done in animal welfare with the callousness and disregard for living beings in some posts and comments. For example, a person once commented on something I wrote in the EA Forum, saying, 'Who cares if some random frog species becomes extinct?'
The callousness of this attitude took my breath away. I can almost hear the phrase 'Does not compute! Does not compute!' rattling away, over and over in my brain. There is such a huge gulf between the attitudes of people like that and the EA activists concerned with, say, the welfare of shrimps. Or insects. (Especially in view of recent research on bee intelligence and even emotionality.)
Let's consider a more recent example of EA anthropocentrism I have encountered. It's in the Metanormative Method supplement to the Rethink Priorities’ Charitable Resource Allocation Frameworks and Tools Sequence (the CRAFT Sequence). And it is blind to any kind of ecological perspective:
"An example of moral uncertainty
Take the following scenario. A rural village has a growing human population that it is struggling to feed, so it wants to expand its grazing territory into the adjacent countryside. However, the village abuts a forest that is home to an endangered endemic species of monkeys that doesn’t have suitable habitat elsewhere. If the forest is razed, the monkeys will starve. However, a greater number of humans will be fully nourished. If the forest is not razed, then many villagers will face nutritional deficiencies, leading to serious health problems and possible death. You are tasked with deciding what should be done with the forest. You are morally uncertain, assigning some credence to each of the following worldviews, which give very different recommendations about what you ought to do:
Species-neutral justice: The welfare of all individuals matters equally, regardless of species. Justice requires that we secure a minimal amount of welfare for every individual, not that we maximize the overall or average welfare. Recommendation: preserve the monkeys’ habitat because it is necessary for them to live.
Species-neutral utilitarianism: The welfare of all individuals matters equally, regardless of species. The correct action is the one that maximizes overall welfare, even if it requires sacrificing the interests of some individuals. Recommendation: raze the forest because it will result in greater overall welfare.
Humans-only prioritarianism: Human welfare matters much more than monkey welfare. The correct action is the one that has the best overall consequences for welfare, where the welfare of the worst off is given extra weight. Recommendation: raze the forest because that will save humans, and the interests of the monkeys are not morally important in comparison."
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pOzOpVxGVSoGW6n4h-BoFqrfzOQAoVj8hzk_VQf8dfA/edit
Can you see the problem here?
No solution or moral theory is offered which takes into account the planetary boundaries and which acknowledges that that which is good for the planet is good for all of us. Razing the forest may provide a short term solution for that particular tribe's needs but since it undermines the global commons - the forests which are necessary to create the very air we breathe and to regulate the hydrological systems, prevent desertification, and preserve the biodiversity, the web of life in which we are all held - it is ultimately unacceptable because it would lead to the death of all humans and all life on earth if pushed to the extreme.
The example given also does not offer the solution of the tribe learning to restrict its population so that it can live in harmony with the monkeys in their forest.[3]
Any moral philosophy which is anthropocentric, i.e. which does not acknowledge the essential oneness of humanity with nature, the fact that we are all in this together, is no better morally than religions that tell humans that they are the pinnacle of creation and should go forth and multiply and rule over the Earth.
Effective altruists who fail to acknowledge environmental science and the need to protect the global commons, who put human needs above all others, are essentially like fundamentalist Christians. Examples like these show that effective altruism is out of touch with the existential risks caused by its anthropocentrism. One might as well call it EAA - Effective Anthropocentric Altruism - except that anthropocentrism is, in the long term, ineffective, rather than effective. It keeps humanity on our current trajectory, hurtling towards the precipice of extinction.
In my view, the EA movement will die unless it acknowledges these shortcomings and fully embraces environmentalism. It must also bridge the gulf between those in the movement who care about animal welfare, and those who couldn't care less whether 'some random species' becomes extinct. There may be hope for a reformed kind of effective altruism to supplant its current anthropocentric phase: Effective Ecocentric Altruism, or EEA.
To sum up:
Anthropocentric = Death/Existential Risk-Precipitating = Ineffective
but
Ecocentric = Life-Sustaining = Effective
As I stated in a previous post, there are no altruists on a dead planet. So let's hope this post marks the beginning of the end of the era of Ineffective Anthropocentric Altruism. Let the the era of Effective Ecocentric Altruism begin.
References + Abstracts
[1] Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries
KATHERINE RICHARDSON HTTPS://ORCID.ORG/0000-0003-3785-2787 , WILL STEFFEN, [...], AND JOHAN ROCKSTRÖM HTTPS://ORCID.ORG/0000-0001-8988-2983+26 authorsAuthors Info & Affiliations
SCIENCE ADVANCES 13 Sep 2023 Vol 9, Issue 37 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adh2458
Abstract
This planetary boundaries framework update finds that six of the nine boundaries are transgressed, suggesting that Earth is now well outside of the safe operating space for humanity. Ocean acidification is close to being breached, while aerosol loading regionally exceeds the boundary. Stratospheric ozone levels have slightly recovered. The transgression level has increased for all boundaries earlier identified as overstepped. As primary production drives Earth system biosphere functions, human appropriation of net primary production is proposed as a control variable for functional biosphere integrity. This boundary is also transgressed. Earth system modeling of different levels of the transgression of the climate and land system change boundaries illustrates that these anthropogenic impacts on Earth system must be considered in a systemic context.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458
[2] The Anthropocentric Ontology of International Environmental Law and the Sustainable Development Goals: Towards an Ecocentric Rule of Law in the Anthropocene In: Global Journal of Comparative Law Volume 7 Issue 1 (2018) Authors: Louis J. Kotzé and Duncan French
Abstract
In this article we argue that the Anthropocene’s deepening socio-ecological crisis amplifies demands on, and exposes the deficiencies of, our ailing regulatory institutions, including that of international environmental law (iel). Many of the perceived failures of iel have been attributed to the anthropocentric, as opposed to the ecocentric, ontology of this body of law. As a result of its anthropocentric orientation and the resultant deficiencies, iel is unable to halt the type of human behaviour that is causing the Anthropocene, while it exacerbates environmental destruction, gender and class inequalities, growing inter- and intra-species hierarchies, human rights abuses, and socio-economic and ecological injustices. These are the same types of concerns that the recently proclaimed Sustainable Development Goals (sdgs) set out to address. The sdgs are, however, themselves anthropocentric; an unfortunate situation which reinforces the anthropocentrism of iel and vice versa. Considering the anthropocentric genesis of iel and the broader sdgs framework, this article sets out to argue that the anthropocentrism inherent in the ontological orientation of iel and the sdgs risks exacerbating Anthropocene-like events, and a more ecocentric orientation for both is urgently required to enable a more ecocentric rule of law to better mediate the human-environment interface in the Anthropocene. Our point of departure is that respect for ecological limits is the only way in which humankind, acting as principal global agents of care, will be able to ensure a sustainable future for human and non-human constituents of the Earth community. Correspondingly, the rule of law must also come to reflect such imperatives.
https://brill.com/view/journals/gjcl/7/1/article-p5_5.xml
[3] Overpopulation is a major cause of biodiversity loss and smaller human populations are necessary to preserve what is left
Philip Cafaro, Pernilla Hansson, Frank Götmark Biological Conservation 272, 109646, 2022
Global biodiversity decline is best understood as too many people consuming and producing too much and displacing other species. Wild landscapes and seascapes are replaced with people, our domestics and commensals, our economic support systems, and our trash. Conservation biologists have documented many of the ways that human activity drives global biodiversity loss, but they generally neglect the role of overpopulation. We summarize the evidence for how excessive human numbers destroy and degrade habitats for other species, and how population decrease opens possibilities for ecological restoration. We discuss opportunities for further research into how human demographic changes help or hinder conservation efforts. Finally, we encourage conservation biologists to advocate for smaller populations, through improved access to modern contraception and explicit promotion of small families. In the long term, smaller human populations are necessary to preserve biodiversity in both less developed and more developed parts of the world. Whether the goal is to save threatened species, create more protected areas, restore degraded landscapes, limit climate disruption, or any of the other objectives key to preserving biodiversity, reducing the size of the human population is necessary to achieve it.
https://www.sustainable.soltechdesigns.com/Overpopulation-and-biodiversty-loss(2022).pdf
Thank you for your post, Deborah. While I share your concern for the environment, I think there's a key difference in our perspectives that's worth discussing.
Many EAs, myself included, don't view nature as having intrinsic moral value. Instead, we care about environmental protection primarily because of its impact on sentient beings - humans and animals. This doesn't mean we ignore environmental issues, but rather that we approach them from a different angle and would likely make different trade offs.
The reason environmental issues aren't typically top priorities for EAs is that we try to focus on areas where we can have the greatest positive impact per unit of resources. In many cases, we've found that direct interventions to improve human and animal welfare, or work on existential risks like AI safety, seem to offer more leverage for improving lives and securing a positive long-term future.
That said, I think there's a lot of common ground given we do similar goals for a flourishing planet for humans and animals.
I'm curious how you envision "Effective Ecocentric Altruism" in practice. What specific interventions would you prioritise? How would you measure impact?
I think the post was already acknowledging the difference in perspective and trying to make the case that the perspective that you are advocating for seems shortsighted from their perspective.
The key point here seems to be the consideration that is given to interconnectedness. Whereas “traditional” EA assumes stability in the Earth System and focuses “only” on marginal improvements ceteris paribus, the ecological perspective highlights the interconnectedness of “everything” and the need for a systemic focus on sustaining the entire Earth system rather than simply assuming it’s continued functioning in the face of ongoing disruption and destruction.
I think the argument is sound and does show a pretty big blind spot in “traditional” EA thinking. I think the post itself probably could have made the point in a way that is easier to digest for people with contrarian beliefs but the level of downvoting seems pretty harsh and ultimately self-defeating to me.
In terms of practical consequences, I would first of all expect more recognition of systemic perspectives in EA discourse and more openness to considering the value of ecosystems and earth systems in general. This seems worthwhile even just on instrumental grounds.
The post emphasizes systemic thinking but doesn't clarify how this would change cause prioritization in practice. The example takes as a given that we should make value judgments favoring ecosystems over human/animal welfare. I've seen various posts from people working on existential risk who try to put estimates on likelihood of systemic failures.
While measurement in complex systems is challenging, I'd like to see more concrete proposals from systemic thinkers. What specific interventions do they suggest? How would they evaluate impact, even roughly?
I think this post falls into the classic "EA should" trap - it criticizes current approaches but doesn't actually suggest concrete solutions or alternatives.
I'm saying this because I'd genuinely be interested in seeing more concrete analysis from this perspective but don't think this post is productive.
Reading your comments, I think we come from different perspectives when reading such a post.
I read the post as an attempt to highlight a blind spot in "orthodox" EA thinking, which simply tries to make a case for the need to revisit some deeply ingrained assumptions based on alternative viewpoints. This tends to make me curious about the alternative viewpoints offered and if I find them at least somewhat plausible and compelling I try to see what I can do with them based on their own assumptions. I do not necessarily see it as the job of the post to anticipate all the questions that a person coming from the "orthodox" perspective may come up with. Certainly, it's nice if it is well written and can anticipate some objections but this forum is not a philosophical journal (far from it).
So, what I am concerned with in your reaction is that it gives me an impression that you may be applying the same standards for people who share your "orthodox" understanding that "only sentient beings count" and those who question the viability of this understanding. You seem to take the "orthodox" understanding as given and demand that the other person makes arguments that are convincing from this "orthodox" perspective. This can be very difficult if the other side questions very fundamental assumptions of your position. There is a huge gap between noticing inconsistencies and problems with an "orthodox" framework and being able to offer viable alternatives that make sense to people looking at this through the lens of the "orthodox" framework. A seminal reading to appreciate the nature of this situation would probably be Thomas Kuhn (2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition.
The whole reason I commented in the first place is that I am sometimes disappointed by people down-voting critical posts that challenge "orthodoxy" but in the next breath triumphantly declare how open-minded EA is and how curiosity and critique is at the heart of the movement. "EA is an open-ended question", they say and go down-vote the post that questions some of their core assumptions (not saying this is you, but there must be some cases of this given what I have seen happen here in the forum). Isn't it in this communities best interest and stated self-understanding that it should be a welcoming place to people who are well meaning and able to articulate their questions or critiques in a coherent manner even if they go against prevailing orthodoxy? Isn't this where EA itself came from?
Moving out of the slight rant mode and trying to reply to your substantial question about practical differences. I think my previous comment and also this provide some initial directions for this. If your fundamental assumptions change, it does not necessarily make sense to keep everything else as is. In this way, it's a starting point for the development of a new "paradigm" and this can take time. For example, EA still has arguably a mostly modern understanding of "progress", which may need to be revisited in a more systemic paradigm. There are some efforts ongoing in this direction, for example, under the label of "metamodernism".
I personally also find the work of Daniel Schmachtenberger and the Civilization Research Institute quite interesting. They have a new article on this very topic that may be an interesting read: https://consilienceproject.org/development-in-progress/.
However, there are many more people active in this space. The "Great Simplification" podcast by Nate Hagens has some interesting episodes with quite a few of them. Disclaimer: I am not naively endorsing all of the content on the podcast (e.g., I don't really listen to the "frankly" episodes) but I think it provides an interesting, useful, and often inspiring window on this emerging systemic perspective. If you are not too familiar with the planetary boundaries framework there is a recent episode with Johan Rockström that discusses it in broad strokes.
Hi Gemma,
You wrote, “Many EA‘s, myself included, don’t view nature as having intrinsic moral value.“
I am new to EA and not a native speaker, so do I understand you correctly? You say that viewed from your and many EA’s moral framework, nature has no value?
As such?
Let me answer this with a quote from Calvin and Hobbes: “We seem to understand the value of oil, timber, minerals and housing, but not the value of unspoiled beauty, wildlife, solitude and spiritual renewal.“[1]
So how about the value of breathtaking beauty?
How about awe and wonder, even in tiny things?
How about adventure?
How about freedom?
How about oneness and spiritual encounters?
How about bouts of immeasurable happiness?
How about harmony and balance?
How about recreation?
How about comfort in grief?
How about mental and physical health?
How about fierce love of nature?
How about companionship with animals in nature?
Are these not values, very dear to many humans?
And if these emotional values are too fuzzy, how about the life-support system of this big spaceship we are all travelling on? Is there value in its circuits and cycles and feedback loops?
The climate system of nature is nothing more than a very complex climate system of a spaceship and we have revved up the infrared recapture by 50% so far, silly us.[2], [3]
How about the oxygen that keeps you and me and us all alive 12 times a minute? It was created by lifeforms. You and I need 21%.[4] Let it fall to 10% and we will all be in deep trouble. But do you or any Star Treck Scotties out there know how it is kept at this precise level? Probably something complex again that nobody knows much about.
How about the finite arable land on this earthship? Almost every available square meter is already being used for human purposes (and even many which are far from optimal or can only be used very few times). Did you know that 95% of this spaceship’s global biomass of mammals and birds is nowadays humans and their livestock? And that all the rest of the still so-called biodiversity of wild mammals and wild birds share the remaining 5% of biomass? [5],[6] The world is no longer like it was, but ever better documentaries make us think that there are still vast (unused) spaces of nature out there. There are not. We have grown. And vast unused spaces are called deserts, icecaps or the high mountains. This is a fight about the scraps that are left.
And how about the interconnectedness of systems? Olive oil has become much more expensive lately, for example [7]. We are losing large numbers of olive trees to the increasing heat. How long do they take to regrow before you can harvest your first olives? Will the little trees stand a chance in the new blazing heatwaves? Probably not. So, what is gone, is gone. How about coffee? How about cocoa and chocolate? How about bananas?
Everything is connected to everything else.
That is my take on our situation on this spaceship. And I value my chocolate very much!
To improve the situation we need complex solutions, which are usually very expensive and therefore usually not implemented.
Now that we have taken over the helm of this spaceship, we find that we understand very little of all that is going on behind the panels on the bridge and in the engine room and we find ourselves in an unfortunately complex environment. We should spend great amounts of money very fast to learn to deal with the situation. And we will probably need AI to help us understand the mind-boggling complexity.
How can someone or many EAs want to do good in a complex world with no regard for nature? The physical, chemical, biological and emotional basis of our existence?
I find this hard to understand.
[1] Bill Watterson: Calvin and Hobbes November 27, 1995.
[2] US Global Monitoring Laboratory NOAA GML data:
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_gl.txt
[3] Umweltbundesamt: Atmosphärische Treibhausgas-Konzentrationen. 280 µmol/mol (ppm) in pre-industrial time (= 100%) in comparison to 419.55 µmol/mol (ppm) in 2023 (=149,84%). https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/klima/atmosphaerische-treibhausgas-konzentrationen#kohlendioxid-
[4] Edward Naranjo in Industrial Hygiene: Oxygen Deficiency: The Silent Killer; Injury or death due to oxygen deficiency is a common hazard in the petrochemical, refining and other industries, and confined spaces, if not properly monitored, can create hazards for workers and rescuers. Dec. 1, 2007
https://www.ehstoday.com/industrial-hygiene/article/21907248/oxygen-deficiency-the-silent-killer
[5] Yinon M. Bar-On, Rob Phillips, Ron Milo: The biomass distribution on Earth. PNAS May 21, 2018, Vol 115 (25) 6506-6511
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115
If you compare humans (0.06 Gigatonnes C) and their livestock (0,1 Gt C) to all other wild mammals (0.007 Gt C) and all wild birds (0.002 Gt C) you get a percentage of 35.50% humans and 59.17% livestock in comparison to 4.14% all wild mammals together and 1.18% of all wild birds.
[6] A graph published in Yuval Noah Harari’s book Homo Deus (Penguin Random House UK 2015, page 72) states that today’s biomass of large animals worldwide can be divided as follows:
[7] BBC: Why olive oil prices are soaring and what to do about it.
https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20231218-why-olive-oil-prices-are-soaring-and-what-to-do-about-it
[8] The Irish Citizens’ Assembly: https://citizensassembly.ie/about/
No - Gemma said nature has no "intrinsic moral value". There is a difference between intrinsic value and instrumental value. Intrinsic value is something that is valued for its own sake. Instrumental value is where something is valuable because it contributes to something else.
Nature clearly has instrumental value, i.e. "we care about environmental protection primarily because of its impact on sentient beings".
But nature isn't the only thing that has an impact on sentient beings. The question is how we should best use additional resources (e.g. time and money) to improve outcomes for sentient beings.
Spending more on protecting nature is obviously one option, but not the only one. If we spend more on nature, we have less to spend on human disease and animal welfare etc. So we need to consider all the options, and focus on where we can do the most good.
I'm a bit confused as to whether you are trying to make an empirical point (i.e. that even from a standard utilitarian-ish perspective, protecting ecosystems is a cost-effective but often ignored intervention for the sake of hunan and animal welfare) or a philosophical point (i.e. that we should value ecosystems for their own sake rather than for the sake of human and animal welfare). These are very different claims but I find it hard which you are trying to get at here. Could you please clarify?
Title edited on 7 August: more concise, less confrontational. A couple of other superfluous sentences also deleted.