Thanks Jack, I think this is a really important topic and appreciate you writing about it. Some quick thoughts below - I'm sure I'll have more to say over time.
At an organisational level: I think that your suggestions around governance and policies are a good and obvious place to start. For example, at EAA, we already have conflict of interest and whistleblower policies, and an independent board, who I meet with very regularly. I'm not sure all of these policies are online, but I will aim to publish them on our new website, up in mid-November.
On a personal level: I have thought a lot about the narrative of "power corrupts" and thinking about how this might ever apply to me, and what warning signs I should look for in myself, or others around me that should be obvious warning signs. Some very quick examples: clear motivated reasoning, evasiveness when asked direct questions, not taking the concerns of people who are less "powerful" into consideration when they are a relevant stakeholder etc. I plan to build this into my ongoing reflections of my leadership. It's important to me to use my power and influence responsibly, and in ways that are aligned with my values.
I think external accountability is much stronger than personal accountability though, and am grateful to be working with my board of directors to ensure strong governance and accountability.
I would be interested to read and review the minimum standards that you'd like to advocate for. It would be great if this was also presented alongside best practices so orgs can plainly see what to aim for (which should be above minimum standards).
Everyone should be free from harassment and discrimination, and I think it's fair for us to hold communities and orgs that are aiming to do good to a high standard of behaviour.
Yet more great EA media coverage in Australia on a podcast from the major youth radio station: https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/effective-altruism-kidney-donation-hu-pennington/107238206
We got an op ed published in a major Australian newspaper today in response to the recent wave of media about EA: https://www.afr.com/technology/trump-calls-effective-altruism-a-dangerous-ideology-it-s-not-20261007-p6135s
I'm going to rattle off some loose thoughts (mostly just speculation and intuition) - but I think this deserves a deeper interrogation another time: - I think Australia's takes on EA and to some extent evidence-based development are influenced by Peter Singer. Many university educated people are aware of Peter and his work - this is an outlier globally! I think this has driven outsized early interest in effective altruism - I think the fact that Australia has more economic/social equality than other comparative countries like US and UK probably means that Aussies perceive ourselves as "lucky" comparative to other countries - and I think are less likely to default to "charity begins at home". (I don't think this is sufficient to drive action, but maybe is a useful factor) - A high proportion of Aussies are either first or second gen migrants - I wonder how that interacts with seeing/feeling the need - I think there's lots to explore here - for example some of my Indian / Chinese friends think that development is likely best done through growing the economy as this is how their parents moved from poverty to wealth.
Thanks Jack, I think this is a really important topic and appreciate you writing about it. Some quick thoughts below - I'm sure I'll have more to say over time.
At an organisational level: I think that your suggestions around governance and policies are a good and obvious place to start. For example, at EAA, we already have conflict of interest and whistleblower policies, and an independent board, who I meet with very regularly. I'm not sure all of these policies are online, but I will aim to publish them on our new website, up in mid-November.
On a personal level: I have thought a lot about the narrative of "power corrupts" and thinking about how this might ever apply to me, and what warning signs I should look for in myself, or others around me that should be obvious warning signs. Some very quick examples: clear motivated reasoning, evasiveness when asked direct questions, not taking the concerns of people who are less "powerful" into consideration when they are a relevant stakeholder etc. I plan to build this into my ongoing reflections of my leadership. It's important to me to use my power and influence responsibly, and in ways that are aligned with my values.
I think external accountability is much stronger than personal accountability though, and am grateful to be working with my board of directors to ensure strong governance and accountability.
I would be interested to read and review the minimum standards that you'd like to advocate for. It would be great if this was also presented alongside best practices so orgs can plainly see what to aim for (which should be above minimum standards).
Everyone should be free from harassment and discrimination, and I think it's fair for us to hold communities and orgs that are aiming to do good to a high standard of behaviour.
❤️
Yet more great EA media coverage in Australia on a podcast from the major youth radio station: https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/effective-altruism-kidney-donation-hu-pennington/107238206
Sites like archive.is often cache articles :)
We got an op ed published in a major Australian newspaper today in response to the recent wave of media about EA: https://www.afr.com/technology/trump-calls-effective-altruism-a-dangerous-ideology-it-s-not-20261007-p6135s
Thanks Zach for writing on behalf of CEA.
EA Australia is also not going to be platforming Manifund for the foreseeable future.
This is a great comment and very true!
I guess in my writing of this, I was assuming that doing good is table stakes - but I think you're right to call this out explicitly!
very exciting!!!
We enticed a real life comedian onto our podcast:
I'm going to rattle off some loose thoughts (mostly just speculation and intuition) - but I think this deserves a deeper interrogation another time:
- I think Australia's takes on EA and to some extent evidence-based development are influenced by Peter Singer. Many university educated people are aware of Peter and his work - this is an outlier globally! I think this has driven outsized early interest in effective altruism
- I think the fact that Australia has more economic/social equality than other comparative countries like US and UK probably means that Aussies perceive ourselves as "lucky" comparative to other countries - and I think are less likely to default to "charity begins at home". (I don't think this is sufficient to drive action, but maybe is a useful factor)
- A high proportion of Aussies are either first or second gen migrants - I wonder how that interacts with seeing/feeling the need - I think there's lots to explore here - for example some of my Indian / Chinese friends think that development is likely best done through growing the economy as this is how their parents moved from poverty to wealth.