Welcome all,
Here's a place to discuss projects, ideas, events and miscellanea relevant to the world of effective altruism!
There have been plenty of these in the last month, including the shipping of Peter Singer's book, Nick Bostrom's TED Talk and Will MacAskill's upcoming book! And also my own EA Handbook! :)
Thanks very much to Marcus Davis for moderating the EA Forum over the past month! He will be wrapping up over the coming weeks, but if anyone else if interested in taking up the reins and using it as a way to promote thoughtful effective altruism, then I would like to hear from you. (You can contact me at contact@effective-altruism.com).
People sometimes accuse effective altruism or effective altruists of being cold and clinical. What are your thoughts on this accusation and to what extent do you think it's true or false?
For my part:
I don't think our attitude to charity is cold. We may often not ultimately care about particular causes, but we mostly care about some terminal values like preventing suffering. And this moves us to give large amounts, or even give until it hurts. Whereas many people barely give at all, or at least don't respond to the fact that giving up luxuries could save lives and prevent enormous amounts of suffering.
That said, not all EAs are motivated by warmth or caring.
The many EAs I've known have on average had above average general warmth. Unsurprisingly, some have been exceptionally warm and some exceptionally cold.
I don't feel I have a good understanding of the accusation of coldness. Some of it may be discomfort at turning down opportunities to help (e.g. giving to homeless people you pass, arguably) because of the numbers.
There are some personality types and subgroups within EA which may naturally be a little colder. (E.g. the ones often referred to as "geeky" or "autistic", although I don't know if this is a slur against autistic people.)
I should say this accusation isn't something I have a chip on my shoulder about; I don't think people often find me cold at all.