INHUMAN ALTRUISM: “Effective Altruism” and the Faux Philanthropists of Silicon Valley

“Everybody wants to save the world; nobody wants to help mom do the dishes.” — P.J. O’Rourke

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” — John Kenneth Galbraith

“Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.” — Martin Luther King, Jr.

“How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it.” — Adam Smith

One of the great tragedies of our internet misinformation age is that simple terms and concepts have been totally discombobulated. Take for example the idea of altruism, which Wikipedia defines as:

Altruism is the principle and practice of concern for the well-being and/or happiness of other humans or animals above oneself. While objects of altruistic concern vary, it is an important moral value in many cultures and religions. It may be considered a synonym of selflessness, the opposite of selfishness.

Furthermore, modern evolutionary observations describe that the well being of an entire species (especially humans) depends upon a significant number sacrificing their own individual drives and dispositions. By contrast, a relatively new concoction labeled “Effective Altruism” (EA), has become latched on to by certain elite elements within our corrupt and capricious political economy. It is especially popular among our instant tech billionaires who seek to sustain the cultural ethos of “moving fast and breaking things”. In essence, they contend that they should be allowed continue their self-regulatory ways, and make as much money as fast as inhumanly possible, so as to have a greater sum to combat societal wide dislocations. Amid our emerging Techno-Feudalist Economy (See: https://readmedium.com/andreesen-and-the-techno-feudalist-apologia-dbe18ae28847), this is merely a reinvention of the ill-kept notion of Noblesse Oblige (the obligations of wealth) amid a sea of digital and debt serfdom.

Effective Altruism: Another Philosophical Movement (of the bowel?):

The concept of EA actually traces its origins to the misapplications of leading Australian philosopher (of equal rights for animals fame), Peter Singer at Princeton University, and has been popularized by Oxford wunderkind and self-punishing Siddartha (turned Silicon Valley guru), Will MacAskill. Unlike, much of philosophy in the modern era (with arcane and labyrinthine methods that ultimately make more sense in theory than practice), EA is simply banal (common sense) in practice, yet uninstructive in theory. At root, it relates the famed “Trolley Car Problem” (i.e., in an emergency, isn’t it ethical to kill one worker to save five passengers). It reduces altruism to a mundane calculus, ornamented by a cult of ascetic egoism.

I am really NOT interesting in evoking a philosophical pissing contest over how many altruists can dance on the head of a pin. Afterall, who could be against making altruism more effective, or deny that in a world full of serious, often intractable, problems we should not feel a sincere need to ameliorate them as much as possible? We could, nevertheless, point out that benefit-cost analysis (from it humble beginning as shopper’s guild to Corp of Engineering boondoggles) have always been an extremely pliable political weapon. Moreover, we must note that constitutional democracies were designed to occasionally override utilitarian (greatest good for the greatest number) prescriptions that trample the rights of minorities.

Personally, I would prefer that we use Ecological Economics (with Complexity Theory tools) that recognize innate altruism and insures much more precise policy simulations by including sufficiently diverse agents (e.g., other-regarding, reciprocal, and altruistic along with the greedy self-interested) in pursuit of widespread economic well-being (Note: https://readmedium.com/towards-an-economics-of-evolution-emergence-and-innovation-540ea19aa101).

I would be remiss, however, if I did not point out a couple of incongruities in the underlying philosophy. I was especially shocked by how Professor Singer dismisses out-of-hand the issue of burgeoning inequality. Certainly, the ways in which our prevailing political economy panders to plutocrats (producing much of the immiseration that his schemes must redress), cannot be irrelevant. In practice, his calculus could undermine regulatory restraints and/or progressive taxation in order to accumulate greater funding for his select redistribution efforts. Moreover, this accumulation scenario is made more dysfunctional if monopoly power is granted to specific firms. These firms could then accelerate their production of negative externalities (unpriced devoluations ), along with consumer/employee exploitation, all the while claiming long range altruistic motives. In short, the basic notion that monstrously over-rewarded owners and executives will eventually choose to give back to society at large, might be a pipe dream. In the real world, outpouring of private largesse usually takes the form of purchasing increased political power (i.e., bribes), and even those investments in particular public causes, are often highly idiosyncratic (e.g., aid to unwed whales).

Before we proclaim Will MacAskill the greatest Scottish philosopher since Adam Smith, we should remind him that only one third of Smith’s three volume treatise (Book 2: The Wealth of Nations) ever actually saw the light of day. Book 1: The Moral Sentiments was conspicuously ignored. Perhaps that is why MacAskill spent ten million promoting his book, or because he appreciates that being a cult leader is vastly more influential and remunerative than being an associate professor. In either case, I find his writing and lectures mostly tautological (true by definition) snake oil, hidden in a pile of philosophical sleight of hand as well as implausible empirical meanderings. Arguments for getting more bang for your charitable bucks, does not explain altruistic choices in the first place. How do we promote such choices in an economic world that is designed to obliterate them, and which maintains that even extremely selfish choices magically create widespread utility by way of the Invisible Hand job? In addition, the type and level of research required to ascertain whether a given effort is more cost-effective than something else, not to mention ability to weed out charities who conceal their extremely lavish overhead rates, is prohibitive for most erstwhile altruists. Certainly, government agencies could do a much better job of regulating how much rubber actually meets the road, but this is just nitpicking. Philanthropic projects, no matter how grandiose, are simply not a viable substitute for efforts to build a equitable society. Finally, Effective Altruism seems to allow for altruism deferred. It is like Saint Augustine’s plaintiff prayer: “Lord make me benevolent and chaste, just not yet”. It obvious popularity among the Masterbaters of the Universe is that it amounts to “allow me get insanely rich (by whatever means possible), so I may then later “change the world” with my beneficent.

The Bankman-Fried Fiasco

One particular MacAskill disciple was the infamous crypto-currency crook, Samuel Bankman-Fried. He vigorously proclaimed his allegiance to EA, gave a few million, and pledged that all his fortune would eventually be given to “longtermist” projects. Later, however, he admitted “I said a lot of dumb shit”. Apparently, for him EA was a clever and cynical ploy to gain widespread public support for his wildly miscreant behavior (i.e., diverting investors funds from his crypto exchange to his own personal investments, luxurious properties, and inordinate political influence). Supporters of EA, suggest he was just an aberration. Nonetheless, his level on the autism spectrum might not be all that rare among those seeking mastery of universe. Furthermore, these unfortunate episodes beg the question of how many acres of doomsday compound (and security guards) should be considered basic personal needs, before one is expected to act altruistically toward those left outside their walls. Or how many senators should one be allowed to buy, as a legitimate expense among altruistic investments.

Despite being completely disavowed by “the movement”, I would contend that Bankman-Fried might be the poster boy for the faux philanthropists and fatal futurists of Silicon Valley (See: https://joanwestenberg.medium.com/sam-bankman-fried-is-a-feature-of-effective-altruism-not-a-bug-90f9fd29b57b). EA makes extravagant excuses far too easy for our new technological overlords. Sam’s babe in the woods of a better world defense may not end with his conviction. The Techno-Rentier (Lords of the Intellectual Property) will likely seek to reassemble the apparatus that makes our subservience more secure next time. We don’t need these self-proclaimed super-humans to show us the way, we need basic institutions that fortify the other-regarding instincts that the vast majority already possess, and isolate and contain those that do not. As the 70s folk group America sang: “Oz didn’t give nothing to the Tin Man, that he didn’t already have”. Do we really want our voluntary exiles from humanity deciding what is in the long-term interest of species?

The Future is Ours’, Not Theirs’:

What is so interesting is that as EA morphs into “Long-termism”, ethical concerns appear to sacrificed on the altar of technological accelerationism in general and the Artificial General Intelligence agenda in particular. Consider how another Sam (Altman) the resurrected CEO of OpenAI offers us “Machina Deus” as the alternative to ethical minutia (Note: https://readmedium.com/it-is-a-thing-thing-openai-artificial-general-intelligence-and-the-emergence-of-alien-life-on-432877b548c3). Compare further the fatally futuristic Robber Barons (of our new tech Gilded Age) who seem to believe that making the world a better place includes colonizing uninhabitable planets like Mars. I would argue that this amounts to casting off our planet, like gorillas who mess their nest and move on. Unfortunately, there really is no Plan(et) B. Before we allow our new AI enhanced overlords to calculate how many we can save in any given trolley car (or space ship), we should be asking is this really what other-regarding behavior processes require?