This is a special post for quick takes by Aaron Graifman. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
Comment Permalink
Mentioned in
How to communicate EA to the commonsense Christian: has it been done before?
I'm considering writing a series of posts exploring the connection between EA and the common-sense Christianity one might encounter on the street if you were to ask someone about their 'faith.'
I've looked into EA for Christians a bit, and haven't done a deep dive into their articles yet. I'm wondering what the consensus is on this group, and if anyone involved can give me a synopsis on how that's been going. Has it been effective?
I'm posting this quick take as a means of feeling out this idea.
This mini-series would probably consist of exploring EA from a commonsense place, considering how the use of Church-language can allow one to communicate more effectively and bypass being seen as a member of the out-group, and hopefully enable more Christians to see this movement as something they may want to be a part of even if they don't share the same first premises.
I don't want to put more time into work that has been deeply covered in the community but feel that this is an area I can provide some insight into, as I have my motivations for reconciliation beyond academic interest.
What are your thoughts?
I'm both a Christian and an EA and have been involved with EA for Christians (EACH) for several years now. There's a whole community around EACH, and we have a Facebook Group and weekly (Sunday afternoon) Zoom call discussions on a different topic each week.
We also have their own conference separate from EA Global, that this year was hosted in Washington DC. I've gone to previous conferences that were virtual before, and also actually met some people in person at EA Global Washington DC 2022, where among other things I actually had a one-on-one with one of the organizers that included a fold your hands and close your eyes kind of prayer (while seated at a table in the midst of one of the large conference one-on-one meeting rooms, visible to anyone paying attention).
Generally, most of the people in EACH are both Christians (from a wide variety of denominations) and also EAs. We tend to have somewhat less orthodox views than the typical EA, such as being more skeptical of AI risk and Longtermism generally, as well as putting some value on Christian centric cause areas like missions alongside things like global poverty.
The EACH blog has a lot of posts that sound like essentially what you're looking for. I'd suggest giving it a read. There are actually a lot of Bible verses that can be interpreted to support EA ideas, so taking a Christian approach to EA is very much doable, even if the larger movement is mostly secular.
Hi Joseph,
I'm very glad to hear that. How might one go about bringing that movement into their local church?
I've encountered many Christians who use the second-coming as a reason not to care too much about the long-term future and I don't know how to reconcile this. I consider myself Agnostic, but some of my Baptist friends have become convinced that since their faith is, well, faith-based, they don't feel like the moral imperative to do acts beyond tithing.
What're your thoughts on this?
If there's any advice or resources you could point me to, that would be excellent.
Thank you very much
Hi Aaron,
I think how to bring EA ideas into our local church has been a topic of discussion in the past. Although, it seems up to individual Christian EAs how to go about it, some ideas we had included things like bringing up charities like the Against Malaria Foundation as possible causes for our churches to consider donating to, and speaking individually with church leaders and people we know at the church about concepts like the importance, neglectedness, and tractability framework.
Also, emphasizing Jesus' teachings, like how "when you give to the least of these, you give to me" (demandingness), or the parable of the talents (effectiveness), or speaking of "you will know them by their fruits" (consequences), can be helpful to encourage a stronger moral imperative.
Regarding the second-coming, EACH has diverse views on eschatology, and some of us tend to focus on present issues like global poverty more than far distant future considerations. Many of us think that God would not allow humanity to go extinct, so Existential Risks are much less of a concern than Suffering Risks, although prudence suggests we should still act to mitigate any kind of risk, existential or not, in the same way we still go to a doctor when we are sick, even though getting sick seems like the Will of God. Also, even from the most fundamentalist perspective, the day and the hour of the second-coming are unknown, and so it is prudent to still make future plans and act with wisdom and consideration.
There are also scriptural passages about descendents being like the stars and grains of sand on the beach, which suggest that the future will be filled with flourishing humans, and it follows that we have a certain degree of responsibility towards them, which can be considered support for a kind of soft Longtermism.
We're somewhat skeptical of hard Longtermism though, as it seems like the far future is ultimately in the hands of God, and not something we can plan about with much certainty. As Christians, we choose to be particularly humble about what we're capable of influencing, which is admittedly somewhat different from regular EA thinking.
As for resources, you could join the EACH Facebook Group, and for a bunch of potentially relevant articles there's the Christ and Counterfactuals substack blog (which is written by a number of EACH members).
As a Christian, I'd add that lots of really bad stuff has happened over the course of human history, like the Black Death. It's true that longtermists focus more on of value of X-risk reduction in avoiding human extinction, but there's still considerable value if the worst-case scenario is "only" the death of one-third of the world's current population.
Depending on the specific congregation, more of an AI ethics approach could also be helpful -- I think there's much in Catholic moral theology in particular that relates to this, although the basic ideas should be present ~everywhere.
Hi Joseph,
Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful responses. This has helped me gain an understanding of your perspective. I'm now considering speaking to the head pastor this Sunday about EACH, with what you've said in mind. I find that this point in particular stood out to me as reasonable and important.
Also, emphasizing Jesus' teachings, like how "when you give to the least of these, you give to me" (demandingness), or the parable of the talents (effectiveness), or speaking of "you will know them by their fruits" (consequences), can be helpful to encourage a stronger moral imperative.
Side note:
I followed the Christ and Counterfactuals blog and will read more of what they have on there. Philosophy of Religion is somewhat of a natural interest for me, as is the theology of Christianity, so if you know anyone who I should reach out to about potentially contributing to the blog, that would be wonderful. I would love to add to the discussion and body of work.
Thank you again,
Aaron
Hi Aaron,
I direct EACH. Thanks for your interest - I'd be happy to have a chat anytime.
For a bit about us and our impact, you can read here, or see here for a directory of our linktree.
For Christians who have no interaction with EA, the careers website is a much better entry point, as is this excellent blog article related to effective giving.
Hi @JDBauman,
Thank you for getting in touch with me. I shared that website with the local church.
I'm very happy to see that there is a thriving community of Christians involved with EA and effective charity.
- Aaron
Curated and popular this week
·
[Cross-posted from my Substack here]
If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right?
The answer is all of them and none of them.
This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say:
* Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement.
* Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick.
* Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement.
* Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964.
* Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly.
* And so on…
To paint this picture, we can see this in action below:
Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption
Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising
What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things:
1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing
2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
·
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons.
1. Scalability
2. Capital counterfactuals
3. Standards
4. Learning potential
5. Earning to give potential
These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1]
Scalability
There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations.
Capital Counterfactuals
I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue.
Standards
Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want.
Learning Potential
Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
·
I wanted to share a small but important challenge I've encountered as a student engaging with Effective Altruism from a lower-income country (Nigeria), and invite thoughts or suggestions from the community.
Recently, I tried to make a one-time donation to one of the EA-aligned charities listed on the Giving What We Can platform. However, I discovered that I could not donate an amount less than $5.
While this might seem like a minor limit for many, for someone like me — a student without a steady income or job, $5 is a significant amount.
To provide some context:
According to Numbeo, the average monthly income of a Nigerian worker is around $130–$150, and students often rely on even less — sometimes just $20–$50 per month for all expenses. For many students here, having $5 "lying around" isn't common at all; it could represent a week's worth of meals or transportation.
I personally want to make small, one-time donations whenever I can, rather than commit to a recurring pledge like the 10% Giving What We Can pledge, which isn't feasible for me right now. I also want to encourage members of my local EA group, who are in similar financial situations, to practice giving through small but meaningful donations.
In light of this, I would like to:
* Recommend that Giving What We Can (and similar platforms) consider allowing smaller minimum donation amounts to make giving more accessible to students and people in lower-income countries.
* Suggest that more organizations be added to the platform, to give donors a wider range of causes they can support with their small contributions.
Uncertainties:
* Are there alternative platforms or methods that allow very small one-time donations to EA-aligned charities?
* Is there a reason behind the $5 minimum that I'm unaware of, and could it be adjusted to be more inclusive?
I strongly believe that cultivating a habit of giving, even with small amounts, helps build a long-term culture of altruism — and it would
As a Christian, I'd add that lots of really bad stuff has happened over the course of human history, like the Black Death. It's true that longtermists focus more on of value of X-risk reduction in avoiding human extinction, but there's still considerable value if the worst-case scenario is "only" the death of one-third of the world's current population.
Depending on the specific congregation, more of an AI ethics approach could also be helpful -- I think there's much in Catholic moral theology in particular that relates to this, although the basic ideas should be present ~everywhere.