It’s perfectly plausible that there are ‘systemic’ interventions that those in the effective altruism community are neglecting. (p. 24)
Regarding global poverty in particular, there is reason to believe that the prospects for systemic change initiatives are greater than the movement has recognized hitherto. (…) The movement (…) should recalibrate its preference for technological solutions to global poverty over political solutions (p. 112)
EFFECTIVE ALTRUISM PHLOSOPHICAL ISSUES - 2019
It is a serious mistake to assume that all "systemic change," in the sense of civilizational initiatives to reduce suffering, must be based on political measures. The possibilities for systemic change that the EA community should primarily consider are those derived from the very unique characteristics of the EA movement. And these imply a non-political social change.
EA is the first social change movement based on the development of a behavioral trait, namely altruism (it could even be considered a case of "behavioral ideology"). Unlike mere prosociality (which can be based on the reciprocity of individual material interests), altruism requires a completely subjective motivation. It is based on self-interest... but not of a material kind, nor of conventional "social fulfillment" ("honor," "prestige," "dignity"). The altruist's self-interest is emotional and ideological (for example, the mere "feeling good" of performing the altruistic act, and the realization of a social ideal).
Systemic change consistent with the originality of a social change movement based on a behavioral trait would have to be the complete development of a behavioral model as a cultural alternative. Apparently, EA's attitude toward the nature of altruistic motivation is one of indifference. Altruistic motivation simply arises for any reason. At the moment, however, there aren't many effective altruists. Ten thousand have signed the GWWC Pledge. That's not many. They are "good," but they are not numerous.
The well-intentioned attempt to convince as many people as possible that altruistic behavior is characteristic of "ordinary people" seems rather unpromising. And it's nothing new. We've been hearing for quite some time that practicing altruism shouldn't be the work of religious fanatics or obsessive maniacs, but rather of happy, cheerful, even hedonistic and "sinful" people. One would think that by appealing to the interest of such a populated universe of potential altruists, good results would be achieved in promoting motivation. But not only does this tactic seem ineffective, but if one reads realistic portrayals of contemporary altruists, such as in "Strangers Drowning," what we find are styles of behavior that are unattractive from a conventional point of view.
"Ordinary people" are unlikely to assimilate a motivation that involves self-sacrifice, detachment, changing habits, and isolation, beyond laudable exceptions. If altruism is not consistent with the psychological changes that altruistic motivation generally entails, it will never "take off" and become a morally influential force for non-political social change. On the other hand, we must also avoid exaggerating the darker aspects of idealistic commitment. Human beings can be happy in many ways. They can have very different temperaments. They can evaluate their own temperament, their own potential, their own aspirations, and their own capacity to adapt to their environment. We need more options and a more realistic approach to motivations that necessarily reflect self-interest.
In short, if we want more altruistic motivation, it must be made more attractive to more people. And the path to large-scale altruism is not the path of a conventional lifestyle. It would be wonderful if "ordinary people" suddenly changed their material consumption habits and dedicated themselves to altruism as one might dedicate oneself to business, sports, or a professional career. But while we await such an improbable miracle (which, due to its unrealistic nature, seems comparable to the miracles proclaimed by theistic beliefs), it would be far more useful to consider what we know about human experience when participating in "spiritual" or "transcendent" experiences of social disruption. A human community dedicated to the moral improvement motivated by altruism could become a thrilling life adventure for hundreds of thousands of sensitive and creative people. It would be a minority... but a much larger one than the ten thousand GWWC Pledgers. If I may use the comparison, appealing to "ordinary people" is like casting a line into a pond teeming with fish, but none will bite. It would be better to cast the line into a pond with fewer fish, but where they might bite. Another comparison is that EA right now, from a motivational standpoint, is like Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign ("just donate"). But we all know that from a social psychology perspective, the "Just Say No" campaign was a fiasco.
EA doesn't need "ordinary people," but "saints." Saints who are happy in their peculiar lifestyle dedicated to benevolence, anti-aggressive moral idealism, and altruistic work; who can generate large amounts of goods and services for humanitarian purposes; and who, through their work and lifestyle, can influence conventional society in a prosocial way (like monasteries in the Middle Ages or Quakers in New England). Furthermore, "conventional" altruists can perfectly coexist with "saint" altruists. In a type of belief marked by the results obtained (from altruistic work), the more heresies, the better.
Starting from a rationalist refinement of the old model of "compassionate religions," we find that the happiness of the saints is built upon various behavioral elements, all not only compatible with but also motivating for altruism: the moral satisfaction of unequivocally doing good; the experience of a highly trusting human community with zero or near-zero aggression; the affective benefits of benevolence (directly related to altruism); the shared effort to seek harmony in behavior, fostering humility and empathy, overcoming self-love, and improving the development of rational arguments; the belief in a harmonious, logical, and stable worldview; the development of effective social skills (avoiding histrionics); and the sharing of an unequivocal common task (mission) with the capacity to influence moral improvement on a universal level (the moral community is not closed to other individuals: a community of witness).
Today, such a lifestyle (whose exact form is, of course, impossible to imagine) can make use of modern strategies unknown to the old "compassionate religions," such as coaching, psychotherapy, or even dramaturgical techniques, which would be selected through trial and error (the more heresies, the better). We can also be guided to some extent by what we know of the emotional experience of political activism (but non-political, now), equally absorbing and passionate for many, and in which experiences of transcendence and elevation have never had anything to do with supernatural traditions. The creative experience of the arts itself can offer us many positive elements related to the psychology of motivating devotion.
In short, we must be realistic about how to cultivate the motivation for a lifestyle change that is necessarily linked to sacrifice and a paradigm shift. Let us remember that it is not about creating an option that appeals to the vast majority because that would be unfeasible given the conventional way of life. But let us also remember that, given the productivity of economic effort today, if a lifestyle of this kind were to attract one person out of every thousand (or ten thousand!), it could completely change the world. Just as an indication, the number of Catholic religious—living an unconventional life—in the world is over a million. Imagine all the good they could do in the world if their devotion and unconventional lifestyle were channeled into effective altruism.
From the perspective of effective altruism, the charity of the Catholic Church is invalid because its motivation is flawed: charity is performed out of supernatural mandate—irrationalism—or, above all, to enhance the prestige of the Catholic Church itself, as a political entity that is an end in itself. The same can be said of socialist idealism: the object of the altruism a socialist can undertake is that which aims to contribute (through propaganda and reputation) to political change (political power).
Someone might argue that, for this very reason, genuine altruism should be motivated exclusively by the quantifiable achievement to be attained (QALYs and the like) and not by the altruistic agent's self-interest in enjoying a particular lifestyle that appeals to her. But the chances of this kind of deontological model—also based on self-interest, like all motivation—being viable are slim, given experience. And if we're talking about utilitarianism, it's foolish not to explore other paths more consistent with the past experience of other social movements in which altruism has been an important element (especially "compassionate religions," though not the only example). Evolution is "copy plus modification."
The first step would simply be to conduct the thought experiment of imagining this new situation. What are "systemic changes"? What is cultural, moral, or civilizational evolution? What are the motivations behind altruistic commitment?