Oh. Looks like people are (once again) figuring out that silicon valley and effective altruism and longtermism and the rest are all bound up root to ass with eugenics and white supremacy.
So: Welcome to the party; there are a LOT of academics, researchers, and people with direct lived experience, already here.
For anyone who doesn't know what 'effective #altruism' and '#longtermism' mean, there's a video by @rebeccawatson where she explains them - and why they are really fucking problematic - in simple terms.
@tine_schreibt @Wolven @rebeccawatson thanks for sharing this video! I think I mostly agree with it's contents, but it doesn't seem to say what you're saying.
The main culprit of the bad things discussed seems to be longtermism, which itself is a fairly extreme view, as well as an *extreme* adherence to effective altruism, and utilitarianism. She even summarizes at the end "moderation in all things" and "I still believe in critically evaluating the effectiveness of our charity", which does not suggest that effective altruism is an inherently problematic idea.
Anyways, I'm mostly sharing here because I must be missing some context about what recently occurred to spark this very vague thread, so if anyone has more resources explaining why effective altruism is bad, or what recently happened, please do share.
Now I'm confused.
Your criticism is comparable to: "This person explains why alcoholism and drunk driving are bad, but says that she doesn't demand a new prohibition, so it's not really a criticism of alcohol."
The extremes we see play out in society make the thing dangerous and very problematic and one needs to be aware of that. The moderate versions still have enough merit to warrant not discarding them entirely.
@tine_schreibt @Wolven that's exactly correct. I think alcoholism and drunk driving are bad, but I still drink alcohol.
I think the source of my confusion was that this thread seems to be critical of the effective altruism *movement* as it is embodied and championed by some very awful people with awful views, but not that the concept itself is inherently eugenic.
EDIT: or at least, no one has yet convinced me of that or linked to anything arguing it, but I'm all ears!
I think that eugenics only enter into it once you pervert your priorities to no longer count the right to life and wellbeing of all currently living people as equally important and to be willing to weigh off one person's suffering against another person's wellbeing.
Valuing one life more than another isn't inherent in effective altruism, as far as I understand it. Because then it's no longer altruism, it's social darwinism.
And capitalism... and so on and so forth.
Dr. Damien P. Williams, Magus
Christine Schuhmann
Billy