A few years ago, I read The Life You Can Save by Peter Singer. I felt deeply inspired. The idea that charities could be compared using evidence and reason, the thought that I could save many lives without sacrificing my own happiness: I found these ideas meaningful, and I hoped they would give my life a sense of purpose (even if other factors were likely also at play).
I became an Intro Fellow and read more. I went to conferences and retreats. I now lead my university group.
But I’m frustrated.
I’m now associated with predatory rationalists.
This is not what I signed up for.
I used to be proud to call myself an EA. Now, when I say it, I also feel shame and embarrassment.
I will take the Giving What We Can pledge, and I will stay friends with the many kind EAs I’ve met.
But I no longer feel represented by this community. And I think a lot of others feel the same way.
Edit log (2/6/23, 12:28pm): Edited the second item of the list, see RobBensinger's comment.
This is not to say that longtermism is completely wrong—it’s not. I do, however, think "fanatical" or "strong" longtermism has gone too far.
I agree that future generations are probably too neglected right now. But I just don't find myself entirely convinced by the current EA answers to these questions. (See also.)