I’m quite disappointed by this article. I talked to her and tried to steer her towards more substantive and novel concerns. I know that other knowledgeable people talked to her as well. That didn’t seem to make much of an impact.

Overall, not one of the stronger critiques that I've read.

The "how could anyone put a numerical value on a holy space" snippet struck me. I'm no expert in measurement, but the answer to this question seems to be similar to "how do you measure how extraverted a person is?" or "how do you measure the sum total of all economic activity in a country?" or "how do you measure media censorship?" The answer is that you do it carefully, with the use of tools/assessments, proxies, parametric estimating, etc.

There is plenty of research that basically involves asking people "Would you rather have A or B," and with clever research design you really can measure how much people value various intangible things.^[1] And I don't even study or specialize in that area. So it stuck me as odd to have such an established set of solutions which weren't even mentioned. How to Measure Anything is great, but there is also lots written about willingness to pay.

1. ^{^}

   For anyone not familiar with that kind of research, a simplistic version would basically be asking people "Would you rather have an extra $100 each week or have a local art museum," and by varying the numbers you can get an idea of what dollar value people put on that specific experience. For anyone familiar with the research, please forgive me for my vast simplifications.

I think most of the article is pretty stock-standard, but I did want to elucidate a novel angle to replying to these kinds of critiques if you see them around:

When Notre Dame caught on fire in 2019, affluent people in France rushed to donate to repair the cathedral, a beloved national landmark. Mr. Singer wrote an essay questioning the donations, asking: How many lives could have been saved with the charitable funds devoted to repairing this landmark? This was when a critique of effective altruism crystallized for Ms. Schiller. “He’s asking the wrong question,” she recalled thinking at the time. She wanted to know: How could anyone put a numerical value on a holy space?

Ms. Schiller had first become uncomfortable with effective altruism while working as a fund-raising consultant. She encountered donors who told her, effectively, “I’m looking for the best bang for my buck.” They just wanted to know their money was well spent. That made sense, though Ms. Schiller couldn’t help but feel there was something missing in this approach. It turned the search for a charitable cause into an exercise of bargain hunting.

The school of philanthropy that Ms. Schiller now proposes focuses on “magnificence.” In studying the literal meaning of philanthropy — “love of humanity” in Greek — she decided we need charitable causes that make people’s lives feel meaningful, radiant, sacred. Think nature conservancies, cultural centers and places of worship. These are institutions that lend life its texture and color, and not just bare bones existence.

I’d humbly propose that, without good guardrails, this kind of thinking has good shot at turning racist/anglo-centric. It’s notable, of course, that the article mentioned the Notre Dame, and not the ongoing destruction of religious history in Gaza or Syria or Afghanistan or Sudan or Ukraine (for example). If critics of EA don’t examine their own biases about what constitutes ‘magnificence’, they risk contributing to worldviews that they probably abhor. Moreover, in many of these cases, these kinds of fundraisers contribute to projects that should be—and usually otherwise would be—funded by government.

If you value civic life and culture, but only contribute to your local, Western civic life and culture, then you are a schmuck and have been taken advantage of by politicians who want to cut taxes for the wealthy. Please, at least direct your giving outward.

Until I read this article, saw this post and read the comments on it, I kind of imagined that EA's were very similar to normal people, just a bit more altruistic and a bit more expansive and maybe a bit more thoughtful. 

This post scares the hell out of me. 

This article is one of the worst articles I've ever seen in the NY Times. It is utter bullshit, but coated in meaningless, sweet-sounding words. 

This is an attack on everything that we believe in! What the hell will it take to make EA's angry if this nonsense, in probably the most famous newspaper in the world, does not? 

Why do we just sit back and think "that's not a very fair analysis"?

Does nobody feel an urgent need to defend ourselves, to get on TV and radio and places other than the EA forum and explain to the world that this article totally misses the point of EA, totally mischaracterises what we're trying to achieve and why? 

If someone wrote an article about a minority group and described them with a few nasty racist stereotypes, there would be massive protests, retractions, apologies and a real effort to ensure that people were well informed about the reality.

The word "minority" is important here. If EA were the dominate mode of donating to charity, as it should be, then sure, it would be fine for someone to write that there is also value in donating to small, local charities, to challenge the status quo. 

But EA represents only a small minority of donors today, so it is totally inappropriate for a journalist to pick on it. 

But what really makes my blood boil are those who were not mentioned or consulted by this sad excuse for a journalist. For example, the people who desperately need food or medicine to survive. The animals who suffer in factory farms. The people who will suffer the most from climate-change. 

We need to call this out for the bullshit it is. EA's believe that, when you donate, you should think a bit more about the people and animals who desperately need your help, and about what they need and how to help them, and maybe think a little bit less about the warm fuzzy feeling you get helping someone who will thank you profusely in person. 

I absolutely refuse to accept that there is something wrong with that, and I find it shocking and appalling that the NY Times would publish this article as probably the only significant article they have published about EA since the last negative articles they published during the SBF affair. 

At the very minimum, they have a responsibility to get their facts straight. Just read the four paragraphs where she introduces effective altruism. For her it is not a ground-roots movement, it is all about billionaires and ultra-wealthy. This is just not true. But she doesn't even mention that 99.999% of EA's are not rich by American standards - it's just that, unlike most, we're aware of how rich we are by global standards. 

I would really hope to see a strong rebuttal submitted by someone in the EA movement. I would write it myself (and I will), but I don't think an article by me will get published in the NY Times. But there are people in the EA movement who are not millionaires but who do have the name-recognition and credibility to be listened to. This absolutely needs to happen, and fast. Maybe we could turn this negative into a positive. But giving season is already in full swing, and the people and animals who desperately depend on effective giving cannot afford to lose any of the insufficient donations they already get, even if it does mean that the local dog-shelter gets painted in bright Christmassy colours. 

For now I plan to share this on my own social media and use it as an excuse to talk about effective giving and, as a side note, to share an example of shoddy journalism.