Can you share how you have set this up? 

Thank you! 

Hi @Peter Wildeford , It has been a few years, but I hold your opinion in pretty high regard and I was just wondering: To what degree do you stand by the lessons of this book (with or without skimming your own post again)? 

Thank you for your post! I think it is essential to consider how charity interacts with power dynamics and the risks of neocolonial approaches, but this did make me think of a point in this kind of critique that consistently puzzles me.

You write:

The final, and perhaps most foundational critique, is that EA interventions are too often designed from the outside —based on what donors or researchers believe is effective— without meaningful consultation with the people these interventions are supposed to help. The result, critics say, is not just technocratic or impersonal, but paternalistic: a form of help that is imposed, rather than co-created. If poor people are experts in their own needs, who is in a better position to know what would help them? And if effective altruists genuinely want to improve lives, why not begin by amplifying the voices of those they aim to support?

I live in a wealthy country, yet I often appreciate when problems are solved for me without needing my direct involvement. The underlying critique here is valid: local knowledge is invaluable, and listening to those affected will usually improve interventions. As a general heuristic, amplifying local voices makes sense.

However, when I consider how progress works in my own life and in developed countries more broadly, the picture looks different. Many improvements I rely on exist because experts, not locals, prioritized technical knowledge and scale. The water from my tap meets WHO standards rather than being based on local opinion. My appliances result from global competition that identifies expertise wherever it exists. Healthcare is guided not just by local doctors, but also by national and international bodies that assess quality and effectiveness. Medical breakthroughs often arise from global expertise rather than local insight. These examples illustrate that relying solely on local perspectives would leave wealthy countries significantly worse off.

This raises a question: why do we hold global development to a standard of strict localism, when wealthier societies themselves achieved prosperity by leveraging expertise wherever it was found? The principles that drive progress in developed nations, identifying and scaling the best solutions, are directly relevant to tackling global poverty.

Of course, this approach should not override fairness or safety. If interventions risk active harm or require sensitive political trade-offs, local input is crucial. But many EA-funded interventions—like reducing worm infestations, malaria, or lead exposure—are a lot like the water from my tap: technocratic precisely because they avoid contentious political questions. These are large-scale problems that individuals cannot realistically address alone, yet they have minimal local opposition when implemented effectively.

In this sense, I think EA is often more systemic than critics acknowledge. It focuses on solving deep-rooted problems through scalable solutions, much like the systems that underpin prosperity in wealthier countries.
 

Yes! 😄 Some of us are working on exactly this! 

That said, there are also a few caveats:
- At the moment it is actually the Dutch government, not the EU, that is responsible for export controls and which places ASML is allowed to export to and what kinds of restrictions need to be put on that.
- Increasingly, things like export controls are also bypassing European jurisdictions because the U.S. is applying ever more control over the entire supply chain through new legislation that gives them the right to implement export controls on products that contain only a relatively small amount of U.S.-made goods. On the other hand, that is obviously not total control, and the fact that the Atlantic alliance is not in the strongest shape right now might actually indicate that the EU might be willing to move more independently on this in the future. 
- Unfortunately, there is much less awareness of the long-term geopolitical importance of AI in EU capitals. So the theory of change most people working on this now follow is something like: first raise awareness of this being an important issue, simultaneously raise awareness of this being a leverage point in the chip supply chain, and then start advocating for these regulations. 
- ASML is also a company that might threaten to relocate to a more permissive jurisdiction. Now, I don't see that happening very quickly, but it is worth thinking about as a consideration.

I’m still figuring out how I feel about all of this, and I’m not yet sure how it should change my behaviour. But I wanted to say that this post has stayed with me since I read it, thank you for writing it.

I also find it quietly reassuring that Mjreard, of all people, is engaging with this topic; someone I think of as unsentimental, focused on what truly matters, and a sharp critic of ideas. I’m not sure I entirely endorse the comfort I take from that, but it does make it feel more socially acceptable to be concerned about these shifts too.

Interesting idea! This got me thinking about this, and I think I find it tricky because I want to stay close to the truth, and the truth is, I’m not really a “moderate EA”. I care about shrimp welfare, think existential risk is hugely underrated, and believe putting numbers on things is one of our most powerful tools.

It’s less catchy, but I’ve been leaning toward something like: “I'm in the EA movement. To me, that means I try to ask what would do the most good, and I appreciate the community of people doing the same. That doesn’t mean I endorse everything done under the EA banner, or how it's sometimes portrayed.”

Should I Be Public About Effective Altruism?

TL;DR: I've kept my EA ties low-profile due to career and reputational concerns, especially in policy. But I'm now choosing to be more openly supportive of effective giving, despite some risks.

For most of my career, I’ve worked in policy roles—first as a civil servant, now in an EA-aligned organization. Early on, both EA and policy work seemed wary of each other. EA had a mixed reputation in government, and I chose to stay quiet about my involvement, sharing only in trusted settings.

This caution gave me flexibility. My public profile isn’t linked to EA, and I avoided permanent records of affiliation. At times, I’ve even distanced myself deliberately. But I’m now wondering if this is limiting both my own impact and the spread of ideas I care about.

Ideas spread through visibility. I believe in EA and effective giving and want it to become a social norm—but norms need visible examples. If no one speaks up, can we expect others to follow?

I’ve been cautious about reputational risks—especially the potential downsides of being tied to EA in future influential roles, like running for office. EA still carries baggage: concerns about longtermism, elitism, the FTX/SBF scandal, and public misunderstandings of our priorities. But these risks seem more manageable now. Most people I meet either don’t know EA, or have a neutral-to-positive view when I explain it. Also, my current role is somewhat publicly associated with EA, and that won’t change. Hiding my views on effective giving feels less justifiable.

So, I’m shifting to increased openness: I’ll be sharing more and be more honest about the sources of my thinking, my intellectual ecosystem, and I’ll more actively push ideas around effective giving when relevant. I’ll still be thoughtful about context, but near-total caution no longer serves me—or the causes I care about.

This seems likely to be a shared challenge, curious how to hear how others are navigating it and whether your thinking has changed lately. 

Voted!  I also donated to get the digital download bundle—because, secretly, I’m still a Nerdfighter!  

EA 💚 Nerdfighteria  
 

The EA Focusmate group has been a massive productivity boost, and to my own surprise, I even made some friends through it!

I just wish the group element on Focusmate were actually a little bit stronger (e.g., more means of interaction, other shared accountability), but this is a limitation of the platform, not the group.