Why GiveWell are a bunch of losers and I sorta hate them (an open letter to Holden Karnofsky)
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2023 12:21 pm
As much as I respect the Effective Altruist movement, 90% of the time they're kinda cringe. I don't really associate with them, mainly since I think they're a bunch of pedantic pusscakes who are too afraid to offend anyone. That, and their general reluctance to promote veganism.
Going vegan is without a doubt one of the best things someone can do in order to reduce their harm in the world by both sparing thousands of animals from suffering but also helping mitigate climate change, however from where I'm standing it does not seem as though the Effective Altruist community puts enough emphasis on animal rights issues, despite it being one of the largest causes of suffering on the planet, affecting tens of billions of sentient beings every year. They do promote it of course, but it isn't championed as something that should be a key part of the movement.
The core ideas that underly the movement are still indispensible, and in a world full of good intentions but not effective action, they are desperately needed. But I think the problem is that they want to foster a welcoming community so everyone can feel comfortable getting in on being good altruists, but in the process of this, downplay the importance of veganism since it may be seen as alienating (which I believe to be rather INEFFECTIVE altruism), such as saying that the enviromental argument for veganism is weak since you can just donate the difference to a climate charity (which is fucking asinine), OR that the issue of animal suffering just isn't enough cause for consideration, which appears to be the position of the founders of Effective Altruist Charity Evaluator, GiveWell.
https://blog.givewell.org/2010/12/27/an ... charities/
This is one of the dumbest articles I've ever read in my life, especially considering the source it's coming from, so I'm going to do a point by point breakdown of each of the main claims in the article. It was written by one of the founders, Holden Karnofsky (it isn't just any member of the staff, so despite that disclaimer at the top it's reasonable to assume the organization in general has a similar stance, I mean the staff are working with them right?). And although this article is rather old (2010), it was updated less than two years ago, so it's safe to assume these are still the positions being held by Mr. Karnofsky. Let's take a look at this trainwreck of a post.
https://animalcharityevaluators.org/don ... charities/
It's not like we're trying to save fucking dust mites, we're talking about animals that can be as intelligent as three year old humans, form family bonds, feel sorrow, fear, and misery, and don't enjoy being hung upside down and having their throats slit fully concious. 95% of vegans understand that humans DO have more moral value, and 95% of vegans also understand that just because a being has less moral value does not mean they have no moral value.
This next part is what I REALLY wanna talk about:
Why can't you just acknowledge that your lifestyle is causing significant amounts of harm (something that someone like you should be particularly ashamed of), instead of taking the idiotic stance of "I don't value their lives enough for me to care, so therefore it isn't an issue our organization wants to focus on." What would you say to a white supremacist who doesn't value the lives of little African babies dying of Malaria?
That may sound like a false comparison, but it's ostensibly the view you're holding. Instead of considering as objectively possible the suffering currently being experienced by highly sentient beings, you throw your hands in the air and think it's a distraction from the issues YOU think are more worth everyone elses time. Gimme a fucking break.
It isn't that you want to focus on global health that's the problem, it's the blatant and rather egregious dismisal of other issues that makes this such a farce. People look to your organization to find what charities they should be giving to, Mr. Karnofsky, which means you have to put aside personal biases and goals in favor of what actually would give people causes really worth taking part in.
If this was just any old dude and you say something like this, I wouldn't be particularly worried about this, but you are the head of THE leading effective altruist charity evaluator. It's like the difference between an average person saying that aviation states that bees can't fly, and a physicist saying that aviation states that bees can't fly. YOU should know better.
If you were to say something outright like "We understand the massive amounts of suffering caused by animal agriculture, but we want to focus on charities that specifically help humans" I wouldn't really have a problem with this. The fucking problem comes when you're completely brushing away the issue since it's obviously an uncomfortable reality you don't like coping with. You lead your life as someone who values doing good, yet your lifestyle requires the suffering of other sentient beings.
If you're focusing on reducing suffering with the best investment on return ratio, animal charities are easily one of, if not the BEST option currently, especially considering how damn expensive it is to save human lives, even with the most effective charities. And by your own admission, these animals suffer MORE than a lot of the worlds poor. What is your logic with this, seriously?
If you aren't sure what the numbers are, for a charity such as the Against Malaria Foundation, according to GiveWell, is roughly five thousand dollars. Let's not act like that isn't a lot of money. The average American would be lucky to see that much in a month, and someone with that level of income would have to give nearly $500 a month just to save one life in a year. Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way, but I think focusing exclusively on human related issues might not always be the best value for the dollar for most people.
Even with that though, I'm not going to stand up here and say how we should stop giving to these charities like AMF and Helen Keller International (hell I'm in favor of increasing spending) and giving all of the funds to animal charities, all I'm saying is, maybe we can give a tiny piece of the funds to them? The charities reccomended by GiveWell already receive massive amount of funding comparatively, and as time goes on it's going to cost even MORE to save one life (I estimate in five years that number's gonna climb up at least another thousand; I remember looking at archives of GiveWell from at least ten years ago, which estimated that it took under a grand to save a life).
According to ACE, the top charities for animals could use MILLIONS of dollars in funding, and have a much better return on investment.
https://animalcharityevaluators.org/cha ... titute/#c2
https://animalcharityevaluators.org/cha ... league/#c3
If there are two burning buildings, fifty people are helping building A, and five people are helping building B, all other things being equal, you helping which building will have the bigger impact? It's the law of diminishing returns. Hell, $10 to a somewhat effective animal charity would probably do more good than $20 to a highly effective human charity.
Why can't we do both? Do you view giving to animal charities as THAT much of a waste since it isn't being given to human causes? Do we have to dedicate 100% of our resources to human based causes? Is that actually what you're advocating for?
We shouldn't be viewing this as an issue of "Which hurts helps more?", we should be viewing this as an issue of "Which reduces suffering more?"
Mr. Holden doesn't even say how exactly he values animals. Does he value all non-human animals equally? Does he value them based on a metric such as intelligence?
If he's saying that eating vegan would be more expensive, that's usually incorrect, especially if you're focusing your diet on whole-plants. And no, it does not take more time to be vegan, you're still going to be preparing food and eating it anyway, so why not make it food that doesn't contribute to immense amounts of suffering?
Let's also not forget that giving to animal charities and going vegan would ALSO be an immesne help to humans, given how it reduces greenhouse emissions, crop and water use for livestock (instead of humans), antibiotic use, pathogen transmissions, and healthcare costs. Even if you don't give a sweet fuck about animals and only value humans, animal charities would still be your best bet.
So you're both assholes then?
This also vindicates my earlier statement about how this represents the organization as a whole.
So that's what we're dealing with here, any thoughts?
Going vegan is without a doubt one of the best things someone can do in order to reduce their harm in the world by both sparing thousands of animals from suffering but also helping mitigate climate change, however from where I'm standing it does not seem as though the Effective Altruist community puts enough emphasis on animal rights issues, despite it being one of the largest causes of suffering on the planet, affecting tens of billions of sentient beings every year. They do promote it of course, but it isn't championed as something that should be a key part of the movement.
The core ideas that underly the movement are still indispensible, and in a world full of good intentions but not effective action, they are desperately needed. But I think the problem is that they want to foster a welcoming community so everyone can feel comfortable getting in on being good altruists, but in the process of this, downplay the importance of veganism since it may be seen as alienating (which I believe to be rather INEFFECTIVE altruism), such as saying that the enviromental argument for veganism is weak since you can just donate the difference to a climate charity (which is fucking asinine), OR that the issue of animal suffering just isn't enough cause for consideration, which appears to be the position of the founders of Effective Altruist Charity Evaluator, GiveWell.
https://blog.givewell.org/2010/12/27/an ... charities/
This is one of the dumbest articles I've ever read in my life, especially considering the source it's coming from, so I'm going to do a point by point breakdown of each of the main claims in the article. It was written by one of the founders, Holden Karnofsky (it isn't just any member of the staff, so despite that disclaimer at the top it's reasonable to assume the organization in general has a similar stance, I mean the staff are working with them right?). And although this article is rather old (2010), it was updated less than two years ago, so it's safe to assume these are still the positions being held by Mr. Karnofsky. Let's take a look at this trainwreck of a post.
I'm not quite sure what he means by that first part when he says that "It's easy for me to believe," as if to imply that it's only an intuitive conclusion to make, but it seems harmless enough so I won't give it too much criticism. But keep in mind the statement I bolded.Holden wrote:It’s easy for me to believe that animals often are treated horribly, and live in horrible conditions, relative to people (even people living under the international poverty line). I believe this applies both to animals in factory farms (one resource on this topic is The Way We Eat, co-authored by Peter Singer, (disclosure: Prof. Singer has actively promoted GiveWell)) and to stray animals, particularly in the developing world (such as those I saw throughout my recent stay in India).
It might've been different when this was written, but political advocacy is only a part of the outreach programs of these charities's method of actions. It's mainly a mix of corporate outreach, research into vegan alternatives and meta-activism, and general outreach to non-vegans (like advertising, or leafleting). Given however how much of an issue animal suffering is, and how little attention is given to it, we don't have too much time to spend jerking around which charities are better for this cause when we have a good list already. Animal Charity Evaluators has done the math figure them out:Holden wrote:It is unclear to me whether charities are good at improving conditions for these animals. Much of what animal-welfare charities seem to focus on is political advocacy, which introduces a substantial set of complications.
https://animalcharityevaluators.org/don ... charities/
While there are several foundations that are effective at improving the lives of strays AND farmed animals, there isn't any need to value the lives of animals THE SAME as humans to understand that they are sentient beings that can think, feel, and suffer, and intentionally breeding billions of them into existence every year to only satisfy our gustatory pleasures is one of the greatest evils in human history.Holden wrote:However, it seems likely to me that there are at least some groups that radically improve the condition of strays, such that if one valued the lives of animals equally to those of humans – or even in the same ballpark – these groups might be competitive with our best charities in terms of what you accomplish for your donation.
It's not like we're trying to save fucking dust mites, we're talking about animals that can be as intelligent as three year old humans, form family bonds, feel sorrow, fear, and misery, and don't enjoy being hung upside down and having their throats slit fully concious. 95% of vegans understand that humans DO have more moral value, and 95% of vegans also understand that just because a being has less moral value does not mean they have no moral value.
Oh, you mean going VEGAN? Is there something about that word that frightens you?Holden wrote:I do value the lives of animals somewhat. I am very disturbed by what I’ve heard of their treatment in factory farms, and I’m interested in “ethical eating,” i.e., adjustments to eating habits that could create less incentive for this treatment.
This next part is what I REALLY wanna talk about:
This is one of the most inane things I've ever heard from a self-proclaimed effective-altruist.Holden wrote:I do not value the lives of animals equally to those of humans – not even close. I couldn’t bring myself to give money to animal welfare charities that could be spent on global health instead, given what I understand as the realistic range of cost-effectiveness for the two.
Why can't you just acknowledge that your lifestyle is causing significant amounts of harm (something that someone like you should be particularly ashamed of), instead of taking the idiotic stance of "I don't value their lives enough for me to care, so therefore it isn't an issue our organization wants to focus on." What would you say to a white supremacist who doesn't value the lives of little African babies dying of Malaria?
That may sound like a false comparison, but it's ostensibly the view you're holding. Instead of considering as objectively possible the suffering currently being experienced by highly sentient beings, you throw your hands in the air and think it's a distraction from the issues YOU think are more worth everyone elses time. Gimme a fucking break.
It isn't that you want to focus on global health that's the problem, it's the blatant and rather egregious dismisal of other issues that makes this such a farce. People look to your organization to find what charities they should be giving to, Mr. Karnofsky, which means you have to put aside personal biases and goals in favor of what actually would give people causes really worth taking part in.
If this was just any old dude and you say something like this, I wouldn't be particularly worried about this, but you are the head of THE leading effective altruist charity evaluator. It's like the difference between an average person saying that aviation states that bees can't fly, and a physicist saying that aviation states that bees can't fly. YOU should know better.
If you were to say something outright like "We understand the massive amounts of suffering caused by animal agriculture, but we want to focus on charities that specifically help humans" I wouldn't really have a problem with this. The fucking problem comes when you're completely brushing away the issue since it's obviously an uncomfortable reality you don't like coping with. You lead your life as someone who values doing good, yet your lifestyle requires the suffering of other sentient beings.
If you're focusing on reducing suffering with the best investment on return ratio, animal charities are easily one of, if not the BEST option currently, especially considering how damn expensive it is to save human lives, even with the most effective charities. And by your own admission, these animals suffer MORE than a lot of the worlds poor. What is your logic with this, seriously?
If you aren't sure what the numbers are, for a charity such as the Against Malaria Foundation, according to GiveWell, is roughly five thousand dollars. Let's not act like that isn't a lot of money. The average American would be lucky to see that much in a month, and someone with that level of income would have to give nearly $500 a month just to save one life in a year. Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way, but I think focusing exclusively on human related issues might not always be the best value for the dollar for most people.
Even with that though, I'm not going to stand up here and say how we should stop giving to these charities like AMF and Helen Keller International (hell I'm in favor of increasing spending) and giving all of the funds to animal charities, all I'm saying is, maybe we can give a tiny piece of the funds to them? The charities reccomended by GiveWell already receive massive amount of funding comparatively, and as time goes on it's going to cost even MORE to save one life (I estimate in five years that number's gonna climb up at least another thousand; I remember looking at archives of GiveWell from at least ten years ago, which estimated that it took under a grand to save a life).
According to ACE, the top charities for animals could use MILLIONS of dollars in funding, and have a much better return on investment.
https://animalcharityevaluators.org/cha ... titute/#c2
https://animalcharityevaluators.org/cha ... league/#c3
If there are two burning buildings, fifty people are helping building A, and five people are helping building B, all other things being equal, you helping which building will have the bigger impact? It's the law of diminishing returns. Hell, $10 to a somewhat effective animal charity would probably do more good than $20 to a highly effective human charity.
Why can't we do both? Do you view giving to animal charities as THAT much of a waste since it isn't being given to human causes? Do we have to dedicate 100% of our resources to human based causes? Is that actually what you're advocating for?
We shouldn't be viewing this as an issue of "Which hurts helps more?", we should be viewing this as an issue of "Which reduces suffering more?"
Mr. Holden doesn't even say how exactly he values animals. Does he value all non-human animals equally? Does he value them based on a metric such as intelligence?
I don't even know what he's even fucking talking about at this point.Holden wrote:I recognize that there is a tension between the two points above. One could argue that if I spend more money – or even more time – on my food so that I can eat more ethically, this money or time could have been redirected to helping people in the developing world, and that it’s therefore inconsistent to be interested in “ethical eating” but not animal welfare charity. This argument might be correct, though I believe it is not, and may lay out my thoughts more thoroughly at a later point.
If he's saying that eating vegan would be more expensive, that's usually incorrect, especially if you're focusing your diet on whole-plants. And no, it does not take more time to be vegan, you're still going to be preparing food and eating it anyway, so why not make it food that doesn't contribute to immense amounts of suffering?
Let's also not forget that giving to animal charities and going vegan would ALSO be an immesne help to humans, given how it reduces greenhouse emissions, crop and water use for livestock (instead of humans), antibiotic use, pathogen transmissions, and healthcare costs. Even if you don't give a sweet fuck about animals and only value humans, animal charities would still be your best bet.
Holden wrote:For most of GiveWell’s history, the only full-time staff have been myself and Elie Hassenfeld, and Elie values the lives of animals far less than I do.
So you're both assholes then?
This also vindicates my earlier statement about how this represents the organization as a whole.
Then say that. Don't go off on this dumbass spiel about how animals don't have enough value and how it would distract from other causes, just say we aren't familiar enough with this topic and don't want to give bad advice.Holden wrote:We strongly prefer to research causes that we’re personally interested in, because it’s harder to ask a charity the right questions if you can’t really get behind what it does – so we haven’t given serious consideration to animal welfare charities.
I've researched the site and there is currently fuck all on the topic, twelve years on (you couldn't have edited it to say as much?).Holden wrote:However, we now have an employee who cares more about animal welfare, enough (in our judgment) to potentially do good work researching animal welfare charities. We aren’t yet ready to commit to researching this cause – we need to draw up our plan for next year, which we will be doing soon – but a report on animal welfare charities is a possibility in the next year, and very likely to happen eventually if GiveWell stays in existence.
It’s also possible that we will (eventually) produce content on “ethical eating,” which may be a way (aside from charity) that individuals can spend more money in order to accomplish good. Whether this content fits with our core mission is debatable; it won’t be happening under the GiveWell name in the short term.
So that's what we're dealing with here, any thoughts?
