Episode 196: Benevolent Billionaire Despotism and US Media’s Softball Treatment of ‘Effective Altruism’
Jan 31, 2024
auto_awesome
This episode dives into the rise of Effective Altruism and its portrayal of the wealthy as saviors. It explores the gamification of wealth distribution and the ideology of benevolent control. The discussion includes criticisms of prioritizing the rich over the poor, the influence of figures like Bill Gates, and the historical roots of the movement in utilitarianism. Controversies surrounding IQ tests and Western supremacy are also addressed, along with the complexities and divisions within the Effective Altruism movement. The podcast concludes with a discussion on exploring untold stories in America.
Effective altruism gamifies wealth distribution and falsely portrays the rich as uniquely qualified decision-makers.
Effective altruism perpetuates eugenics, racism, and the benevolent control of the rich over the masses.
The movement's emphasis on measurement-based solutions allows it to avoid addressing systemic issues and challenging power structures.
Deep dives
The Rise and Influence of Effective Altruism
Effective altruism, a philanthropic philosophy, has gained popularity and media support in the US. However, beneath its surface level of virtuousness lies a deeply reactionary movement that characterizes the wealthy as the solution to global problems. The philosophy gamifies wealth distribution, falsely portrays the rich as uniquely qualified decision-makers, and masks eugenics and racism. Despite its claims of evidence and reason, effective altruism perpetuates the age-old ideology of benevolent control by the rich over the masses.
The Origins of Effective Altruism in Utilitarianism and Scientific Philanthropy
Effective altruism traces its roots to utilitarianism, a philosophy advocating the greatest good for the greatest number. It was formalized by British philosopher Jeremy Bentham in the late 18th century and later embraced by industrialist Andrew Carnegie, who advocated for wealthy individuals to support specific institutions. Other proponents, like John D. Rockefeller, further expanded scientific philanthropy, investing in hospitals, research, and public education. These early philanthropists focused on a business-like approach and distrusted universal welfare programs, favoring the idea of wealthy individuals as trustees for the poor.
The Controversial Aspects and Critiques of Effective Altruism
Effective altruism has faced criticism for its arbitrary ranking of causes, its promotion of false austerity, and its failure to address systemic issues. It has been accused of upholding Western supremacy, perpetuating racism, and neglecting democratic processes and government welfare systems. Additionally, some proponents advocate for the allocation of resources to more wealthy industrialists or volunteers in the West, positing that they can do more with the money. The ideological ambiguity and malleability of effective altruism make it challenging to definitively critique, but it is crucial to focus on the power and influence of elite individuals and their institutions who promote this philosophy.
Critique of Effective Altruism's Focus on Wealthy Donors
Effective altruism relies heavily on the support of wealthy donors, which raises questions about the movement's autonomy and potential bias. The movement's focus on ranking and funding causes based on measurable outcomes can lead to a cynical approach that prioritizes the interests of the super-rich. This approach ignores the structural issues and systemic inequalities that contribute to poverty and social problems. The movement's emphasis on rationality and scientific thinking also overlooks the complexity of political and social dynamics. Furthermore, the media coverage of effective altruism, such as the Vox vertical Future Perfect, tends to avoid questioning power and fails to critically examine issues of political economy. This raises concerns about the influence of wealthy funders on the media's coverage of effective altruism.
Strategic Ignorance and its Role in Effective Altruism
The idea of strategic ignorance, which involves exploiting unknowns to avoid accountability, is prevalent within effective altruism. The movement often downplays or ignores the broader societal issues that contribute to poverty and inequality, instead focusing on measurement-based solutions. This approach allows effective altruists to maintain a narrow focus on immediate measurable outcomes while avoiding challenging the power structures that perpetuate societal problems. By disregarding the importance of political action, lobbying, and systemic change, effective altruism fails to address the root causes of social and economic injustice.
"Join Wall Street. Save the world," The Washington Post urged in 2013. "How to Know Your Donations Are Doing the Most Good," The New York Times proclaimed in 2015. "I give 10 percent of my income to charity. You should, too," Vox advised last November.
Each of these headlines tops a piece that extols the virtues of Effective Altruism, a philanthropic philosophy, for lack of a better term, ostensibly dedicated to the pursuit of the best ways to address large-scale, global ills like pandemics and factory farming, informed by “evidence and reason.” The school of thought, popularized by figures like the academic and author Peter Singer and disgraced FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, has been widely embraced – or at least uncritically boosted – in mainline media for years.
Superficially, this makes sense. Effective Altruism seems unimpeachably virtuous: It’s great if people want to solve the world’s problems, and so much the better if they’ve done their research. But beneath this surface lies a deeply reactionary movement, predicated on an age-old desire to characterize the wealthy as the solution to, rather than the cause of, the very problems they purport to want to solve.
On this episode, we parse the rise, motives, and influence of Effective Altruism. We look at how the doctrine gamifies wealth distribution, falsely portrays the rich as uniquely qualified to make decisions about public welfare, often provides cover for eugenics and racism, and masquerades as a groundbreaking ethos of data-driven compassion while it merely regurgitates a 100-year-old rich person ideology of supposedly benevolent control over the masses.
Our guest is Dr. Linsey McGoey.
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
