Number 7 on the hardcover non-fiction list, to be precise. Congratulations to MacAskill and to all involved in the remarkable promotion effort :)
Take the 2025 EA Forum Survey to help inform our strategy and prioritiesTake the survey
Comment Permalink
Reactions
Comments14
Cool!
A philosopher shares his perspective on what we should do now to ensure that civilization would rebound if it collapsed.
The summary seems pretty reductive - I think most of the book is about other things, like making sure civilization doesn't collapse at all or preventing negative moral lock-in. I wonder how they chose it.
A follow on book might be called What We Owe The Past. Many generations toiled their entire lives to hand us the comfortable civilization we enjoy today. We owe it to our ancestors not to squander what they so sacrificed for. We owe our elders that respect. And by respecting them, we respect ourselves.
Wow! Do we have any data on how much of this is a consequence of EA organisations mass-ordering the book to for instance hand out for free?
Especially, how much is a consequence of the bulk-buying by organisations that MacAskill is affiliated with, or the orgs funded by them (I'm thinking student groups)?
Jumping in here — Will is doing a couple events which involved large purchases for attendees, and several university groups also made large orders for Fall 2022 reading groups back in the early summer, when we were driving early sales to ensure the publisher would do a large enough first print of the book. This played an important role in the book not selling out or running low on copies early on (as Superintelligence did, which caused shipping delays on launch day), as reprints can take over a month and the publisher’s original plan was to print as many copies as they do for a typical philosophy book (ie. very few, and possibly even fewer than typical due to industry-wide supply chain issues). Overall, these purchases constituted a minority of sales.
Would it be correct to say that university groups that were quite strongly and repeatedly encouraged to bulk-buy the book by central EA orgs (which MacAskill either works for, is a director of, or serves on the board of)?
I must say that I am also not convinced by the argument that the only or best way of preventing supply-chain issues is having a book bulk-ordered by affiliated organisations, but this is a weaker-held perspective.
As the EA movement is getting more influential, it has a bigger responsibility to check its assumptions. EA, in its intellectual insularity, could deliver misleading messages, causing accidental harm. One example:
Many in EA see nature as net negative. The existence of wild animals is assumed as probably net negative because of widespread wild animal suffering (WWOTF page 213), and most assume plants, mushrooms, and bacteria are not really relevant because they would not be sentient and therefore can not suffer.
The counterintuitive conclusion that nature plausibly is negative might be a sign that the way the movement looks at the world does not reflect the complexity of nature, and it might lead to anthropocentric consequences, both theoretical and practical.
Could the EA focus on reducing suffering risk flattening the interpretation of life, both human and non-human, into the simplistic pleasure / pain dichotomy?
What would change, if nature might be plausibly net positive?
Might human space colonization be less important, if life already exists on other planets?
Could protecting nature and rewilding be something positive, beyond the services (like carbon storage) nature provides to humans?
Curated and popular this week
·
I am writing this to reflect on my experience interning with the Fish Welfare Initiative, and to provide my thoughts on why more students looking to build EA experience should do something similar.
Back in October, I cold-emailed the Fish Welfare Initiative (FWI) with my resume and a short cover letter expressing interest in an unpaid in-person internship in the summer of 2025. I figured I had a better chance of getting an internship by building my own door than competing with hundreds of others to squeeze through an existing door, and the opportunity to travel to India carried strong appeal. Haven, the Executive Director of FWI, set up a call with me that mostly consisted of him listing all the challenges of living in rural India — 110° F temperatures, electricity outages, lack of entertainment… When I didn’t seem deterred, he offered me an internship.
I stayed with FWI for one month. By rotating through the different teams, I completed a wide range of tasks:
* Made ~20 visits to fish farms
* Wrote a recommendation on next steps for FWI’s stunning project
* Conducted data analysis in Python on the efficacy of the Alliance for Responsible Aquaculture’s corrective actions
* Received training in water quality testing methods
* Created charts in Tableau for a webinar presentation
* Brainstormed and implemented office improvements
I wasn’t able to drive myself around in India, so I rode on the back of a coworker’s motorbike to commute. FWI provided me with my own bedroom in a company-owned flat. Sometimes Haven and I would cook together at the residence, talking for hours over a chopping board and our metal plates about war, family, or effective altruism. Other times I would eat at restaurants or street food booths with my Indian coworkers. Excluding flights, I spent less than $100 USD in total. I covered all costs, including international transportation, through the Summer in South Asia Fellowship, which provides funding for University of Michigan under
·
This is a personal essay about my failed attempt to convince effective altruists to become socialists. I started as a convinced socialist who thought EA ignored the 'root causes' of poverty by focusing on charity instead of structural change. After studying sociology and economics to build a rigorous case for socialism, the project completely backfired as I realized my political beliefs were largely psychological coping mechanisms.
Here are the key points:
* Understanding the "root cause" of a problem doesn't necessarily lead to better solutions - Even if capitalism causes poverty, understanding "dynamics of capitalism" won't necessarily help you solve it
* Abstract sociological theories are mostly obscurantist bullshit - Academic sociology suffers from either unrealistic mathematical models or vague, unfalsifiable claims that don't help you understand or change the world
* The world is better understood as misaligned incentives rather than coordinated oppression - Most social problems stem from coordination failures and competing interests, not a capitalist class conspiring against everyone else
* Individual variation undermines class-based politics - People within the same "class" have wildly different cognitive traits, interests, and beliefs, making collective action nearly impossible
* Political beliefs serve important psychological functions - They help us cope with personal limitations and maintain self-esteem, often at the expense of accuracy
* Evolution shaped us for competition, not truth - Our brains prioritize survival, status, and reproduction over understanding reality or being happy
* Marx's insights, properly applied, undermine the Marxist political project - His theory of ideological formation aligns with evolutionary psychology, but when applied to individuals rather than classes, it explains why the working class will not overthrow capitalism.
In terms of ideas, I don’t think there’s anything too groundbreaking in this essay. A lot of the
·
I’m a long-time GiveWell donor and an ethical vegan. In a recent GiveWell podcast on livelihoods programs, providing animals as “productive assets” was mentioned as a possible program type. After reaching out to GiveWell directly to voice my objection, I was informed that because GiveWell’s moral weights currently don’t include nonhuman animals, animal-based aid is not categorically off the table if it surpasses their cost-effectiveness bar.
Older posts on the GiveWell website similarly do not rule out animal donations from an ethical lens.
In response to some of the rationale GiveWell shared with me, I also want to proactively address a core ethical distinction:
* Animal-aid programs involve certain, programmatic harm to animals (breeding, confinement, separation of families, slaughter).
* Human-health programs like malaria prevention have, at most, indirect and uncertain effects on animal consumption (by saving human lives), which can change over time (e.g., cultural shifts, plant-based/cultivated options).
Constructive ask to GiveWell: Until you have publicly considered how to incorporate animal welfare into your moral weights, please avoid funding programs that use animals as aid.
I share this with respect for GiveWell’s impact and to help animal rights-aligned donors make informed choices. If I’ve misunderstood anything, I’m happy to be corrected.
As the EA movement is getting more influential, it has a bigger responsibility to check its assumptions. EA, in its intellectual insularity, could deliver misleading messages, causing accidental harm. One example:
Many in EA see nature as net negative. The existence of wild animals is assumed as probably net negative because of widespread wild animal suffering (WWOTF page 213), and most assume plants, mushrooms, and bacteria are not really relevant because they would not be sentient and therefore can not suffer.
The counterintuitive conclusion that nature plausibly is negative might be a sign that the way the movement looks at the world does not reflect the complexity of nature, and it might lead to anthropocentric consequences, both theoretical and practical.
Could the EA focus on reducing suffering risk flattening the interpretation of life, both human and non-human, into the simplistic pleasure / pain dichotomy?
What would change, if nature might be plausibly net positive?
Might human space colonization be less important, if life already exists on other planets?
Could protecting nature and rewilding be something positive, beyond the services (like carbon storage) nature provides to humans?