1/(Effective Altruism)

I am sure that I risk oversimplifying or mischaracterizing the movement, but a useful summary of Effective Altruism might be to “give charitably in the way that maximizes positive impact”. Furthermore, most EA proponents argue something like “Give in a way that maximizes positive impact equally over all space and time.”

In other words, a key component of the whole thing is to not “discount” impact for distance or time from the recipient(s). People far away, or in the distant future, are just as valuable as those nearby and in the now. But does this really make sense?

To poke at the idea, consider its reciprocal instead (hence the title of this essay)… the idea of maximizing the positive impact of your charity on others that are nearest to you in space and time. AKA “Take care of the people closest to you first.” Might this actually work better?

Maybe one of the reasons that EA gets a lot of pretty emotional criticism (outside of Sam Bankman-Fried) is that the idea of not discounting for space and time only makes sense in the case where YOU are the only person in the whole world able to be charitable - an offensively arrogant and self-centered perspective. If you instead imagine that there are lots of other capable people just like you making the same choices about what to do, the optimal outcome changes. When you are playing on a team, the best strategies are different then when you are playing alone. If everyone is doing the same thing (or even just lots of other people), consider that you will be able to much more accurately measure the impact of your giving on those closest to you. Considering your nearest neighbors reduces uncertainty and therefore increases impact. Assuming that you are pretty similar to others, the optimal global outcome is for you to help the people closest to you.

In fact, this idea of discounting by distance as a way to create an optimal outcome shows up in other places as well. Adam Smith’s “Theory of Moral Sentiments” (a favorite of mine) was the often-forgotten prequel to “The Wealth of Nations”. In it, Smith suggests that the reason the “invisible hand” (the actions of a dispassionate market) actually works is because people tend to look after those nearest to them. A moral compass, applied mostly locally, is in fact the underlying requirement for stable markets. This is unintuitive and indeed the opposite of what most people believe: that markets give rise to stability due to self-interested ‘rational actors’. In reality, irrationality (loving your friends more) is a requirement, and a good thing.

A similar preference for one’s nearest neighbors is found in the ‘flocking’ rules that give rise to the magnificent emergent beauty and complexity seen in murmurations. In the flock, birds consider only the movements of nearby neighbors (a recent paper suggests as few as 7 neighbors), and in doing so optimize for their survival and energy expenditure.

In a recent podcast conversation with philosopher David Edmonds, Sam Harris talks about the unfortunate fact that we tend to experience the description of a single person’s death as having more impact than hearing about a faraway disaster in which many have died. But might this be a feature, not a bug? Perhaps the emergent effect of all of us doing this at the same time actually improves overall collective welfare. While there are certainly some very negative consequences one can imagine, such as rich people giving to their children when they could be giving to needier and less-related people instead, the overall impact might still be optimal.

As Harris mentions in his podcast as well, the most important thing is that we all need to give more, regardless of strategy. So consider this whole conversation as a hopefully enjoyable digression on a second-order concern. If you got anything out of this, please just give more.

Let me close with a spiritual aphorism which is entirely orthogonal to this conversation… “Charity is for the giver.” Beyond all considerations of utility, we do not give enough, and when we do give, it enriches one’s self most of all.