Really appreciate you @mal_graham🔸  thinking out loud on this. Watching from Uganda, I totally get the frustration the US climate feels increasingly hostile to science and progressive work like wild animal welfare. So yeah, shifting more focus to the UK/EU makes sense, especially if it helps stabilize research and morale. That said, if you’re already rethinking geography and community building, I’d gently suggest looking beyond the usual Global North pivots. Regions like East Africa are incredibly underrepresented but ecologically critical and honestly, there’s a small but growing base of people here hungry to build this field with proper support. If there’s ever a window to make this movement more global and future-proof, it might be now. Happy to chat more if useful.

Replacing general EA conferences with cause-area-specific ones would enable deeper collaboration, better-aligned networking, and more focused problem-solving by concentrating expertise and attention on the most pressing challenges within each field.

Field-building in areas like AI safety or global health is important, but without continued investment in building Effective Altruism as a movement and framework, we risk losing the moral clarity, intellectual rigor, and talent pipeline that make those fields effective in the first place.

I first read the Epic of Gilgamesh in campus and thought, “cool, ancient dude fights monsters.” But now, years later after a burnout, trying to do good in the world I reread it and it hit so differently.

Gilgamesh wasn’t just scared of death he was scared of insignificance. Of trying really hard and it still not mattering. Sound familiar?

That’s the part that resonates deeply with me in EA. Whether I’m donating, researching, working on a cause area there’s always this quiet background voice:

“What if none of this matters?”
“What if I’m wrong?”
“What if it’s not enough?”

But I take comfort in how Gilgamesh ended his journey. He didn’t solve death. He didn’t have perfect information. He just built something that helped others.

Maybe that’s enough. Maybe that’s impact.

Would love to hear how you all think about this kind of emotional side of doing good. Do you wrestle with that same existential doubt? Or do you lean into it?

I've recently been learning about Nick Laing's impactful work and, as a Ugandan newly introduced to Effective Altruism (EA), I'm gaining a deeper appreciation for its principles. However, I've noticed that the rigorous frameworks often employed by larger organizations can sometimes be based on inadequate or overly academic data, typically derived from peer-reviewed journals. Such information, although scientifically credible, often prioritizes the interests of journals and reviewers rather than fully capturing the real on-the-ground contexts. This approach frequently leads to an idealistic rather than realistic representation of local situations, reducing the effectiveness of funded projects. Furthermore, there tends to be a bias towards global contexts, which may attract more attention but overlook critical local nuances. As a result, the interventions supported can sometimes become disconnected from practical realities, diminishing their applicability and effectiveness on the ground. I would greatly appreciate insights or suggestions on how we might bridge this gap and ensure our frameworks and strategies more accurately reflect and respond to local needs.

this great and I'm eager to connect with and learn from those who've been part of this community for a longer time. While interacting with LLMs has been helpful, I've noticed that responses sometimes feel generic or disconnected from practical realities. Insights from experienced community members who offer fresh perspectives grounded in real-world contexts are incredibly valuable. Such contributions greatly enhance the relevance and effectiveness of our ideas, making them more achievable and better tailored to the local environments of the beneficiaries we aim to support. I'd greatly appreciate any practical advice, experiences, or suggestions you might share. Thank you! 

Thanks, Cullen 

I really appreciate this perspective. The idea that EA is a question rather than an ideology really resonates, especially when thinking about the diversity of approaches within the movement. It’s reassuring to know that many of these debates about long termism, AI safety, and earning-to-give aren’t settled, but rather ongoing discussions that reflect different ways of reasoning about impact. Coming from a background in fish welfare and food systems in Uganda, I see similar tensions how do we balance immediate suffering with long-term change? How do we integrate global priorities with local realities? And how do we ensure that interventions remain relevant in the face of political and economic uncertainty? It’s exciting to engage with a community that embraces these complexities, and I look forward to thinking through these questions alongside others who share the goal of doing the most good. THIS IS SURELY THE MOST GOOD. 

I get that AI could reshape everything, but does that mean we should deprioritize issues like factory farming, poverty, or malaria problems causing real suffering right now? AI isn’t inherently good or bad; it depends on how humans use it. If anything, shouldn’t we be asking how AI can support existing EA causes rather than assuming everything else becomes irrelevant? Feels like we might be overcorrecting here.