@erwinrossen
> I am extra hesitant when a so-called solution conflicts with common sense, no matter what comes rolling out of the cost effectiveness analysis (CEA).

i am happy to hear this.

once i was at an EA talk where the speakers main point was that we need more professional managers to ensure that there is more effective activism being made for less money.

during questions, i argued that our local animal rights activist group worked quite well, despite not having any managers, because we had a lot of succesful campaigns on no budget at all.

then this EA speaker argued that i was completely mistaken about this, because the time i spent speaking up for animals is time i could have spent working in a bank to earn money. (which is what #PeterSinger argues as well.)

that is unfortunately my impression from local EA people, as well as people i hear from online: an unhealthy obsession with effectiveness, always being defined in terms of money.

> However, most people are (in my opinion) on the not-rational-enough side when it comes to giving, and therefore I promote effective altruism to at least shift the balance a bit more towards that middle ground.

i think this "giving" word can be extremely deceptive. many animal liberation activists i am around are extremely deducated, yet they usually don't donate to charities (which is often the EA definition of "giving") because they're poor and frugal persons.

the "giving" of these activists is often defined as worthless or harmful by EA, because of the sole focus on money.

on the other hand, rich people, billionaires, are often praised as philantropists by EA proponents, for "giving" parts of their large fortunes.

i would argue these rich assholes are "takers" instead, and that describing people from the epstein class (like #BillGates) as "givers" (like peter singer does, when he argues for #EffectiveAltruism ) is upside down.

yes, i think the link inside the #podcast feed was broken. here is a direct link to #AliceCrary's criticism of EA.

https://pdcn.co/e/traffic.libsyn.com/secure/overpopulationpodcast/Alice_Crary.mp3?dest-id=1132n667

also, i do think that the average person has a deeply toxic relationship to "giving" that no rationalist calculation can fix.

people here think that if they give 10€ per month to an NGO that say they save 2 animals for 10€, then they have permission to eat 2 animals, because then they're in 0.

people believe this, because NGOs like #farmkind tell people they can offset their harms by giving rationally and effectively.

in fact pretty much all the "animal welfare" NGOs here use that thinking. they suck up all the money, and then they put some labels on the meat packages.

even #greenpeace advertise fish products here under the #naturskånsom label.

the danish society for protection of animals recommend gas chamber for pigs. people feel like they "protect" animals when they "give" to this NGO or buy meat products with their label.

we really really really can't just talk about "rational giving" without clarifying, because when it's not, then i assume it's like the scam that these NGOs are running.

at an EA talk, i heard how EA was donating farming equipment to fish farms, because their rational analysis proved that was best.

and similarly, EA proponents have been pushing #cagefree, which is great advertisement for chicken farmers, but doesn't translate into freedom or wellbeing for #chickens. that is one criticism #AliceCrary is making.

before we dismiss criticism of EA as irrational, and before we let EA proponents monopolize concepts of "rationality" and "effectiveness" and let them define who is "giving" and who is "taking", i think we have to take this criticism in.