I can't agree with this post more. I raised concerns about the number of times I heard those placed into leadership positions of new EA spin-offs/projects relaying that they felt they didn't have sufficient oversight/ reporting mechanisms in place to get the best out of these programmes or even their talents. Idealistic as we all are, big bucks need big governance - it's as simple as that. 

So let's get scientific about all this. It is now absolutely essential that EA makes the a-priori publication of impact metrics, programmatic design and oversight mechanisms with absolutely all affiliated activities business as usual. It is too easy to get creative with this accounting if done retrospectively - reach gets inflated and declared financial waste gets minimised/ swept under rugs.  If we want the public to ever trust us with their funds again, we have to show all our workings and we have to be open about our failings. The only way of cleaning up the reputational damage of our FTX affiliation is concerted effort around external and objective oversight/audit (annual charity commission reporting is not sufficient) and layered internal governance via boards and committees and, yes, I'm afraid a metric tonne of bureaucratic paperwork. 

EA now has brand-value and must act accordingly: it cannot shirk responsibility as 'an ideology' or even as an accelerator perhaps can. Any negative association is now our liability and our responsibility.  A single bad apple ruins the brand equity barrel - not least when the public bloodlust for all things EA is considered. Do we really want to be the makings of just another bad Netflix documentary? 

I have worked in and alongside global programs via corporate philanthropy, international relations and political parties. I have helped to manage the oversight of programmes ranging from £50k to £50mil in valuation and have seen how paperwork and wraparound scrutiny mechanisms are supposed to increase exponentially with each added zero. This is the only way of safeguarding beneficiaries, of behaving ethically: failing to step up to this bureaucratic burden risks the poor programmatic design or fiscal mismanagement that does unthinkable harm to those who come to depend upon the hope and means to social mobility that these interventions purport to providing. 

I would be delighted to leverage this experience and help EA in its current crisis and - it must be stated - was glad to see that when I did raise these initial concerns with EA leadership, they were responded to positively and I was immediately invited to meet with the governance team. That said, my concerns still stand so the offer does too :) 

Let's get our house in order folks.

I just wanted to share this as best practice in terms of calling in naturally adverse audiences to longtermist goals: https://republicen.org 

I should also note, no theory of change is perfect - your point on the importance of responsiveness is well made - but it’s through collaboration we maximise the chance of controlling for individual blind spots and limitations. I’m not advocating for either / or here, just a move away from ‘more of the same’.

As an aside, I certainly do not think the work and messaging of social justice is vapid and am unsure if that is your own belief or something you have taken from my writing?

Really interesting criticism, Richard - and one I appreciate. I’m fresh out of the EA gate so am keen to be redirected when I’ve missed something important. My starting point here was a more general description about my initial reluctance to engage with EA and how my worries were assuaged by actually getting stuck in and seeing how what I first felt might be empty language was backed up by real sincerity. So to be clear: I am not accusing EA of false rhetoric - I was pleasantly surprised that the key terms and principles shared weren’t parroted back as I’ve experienced in ESG, but were deeply resonant to those I spoke to. It was incredibly refreshing.

Instead, this post is simply my reflection on what I felt was a surprising absence of social justice advocates in this space as I thought this would be their natural habitat. I think that the tension between long term thinking and immediate catastrophe is best bridged by those working at the coalface of how existential risk manifests today, so I wanted to write about the value of appealing to the SJW spirit, rather than dismissing it. However, at present, many in that world view EA as disconnected from the very real suffering and emergency in the here and now and lodge ‘little less conversation, little more action’ criticisms, which aren’t justified either. Overall, we need to do more to explain EA principles in a way which appeals to this important pressure group as it is, in my mind at least, to our detriment that these different factions of the altruistically minded cannot seem to find a common ground to work from.

There is some overlap in the New Yorker coverage: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/08/15/the-reluctant-prophet-of-effective-altruism

But thank you for your feedback. It’s really valuable to me as I try and accelerate my learning.