I agree it’s not >50% probability, but it’s high enough of a probability that we should be very concerned about it.

I’m sure I won’t do a good job of describing all the evidence in this comment, but here’s a link (https://youtu.be/dwtUoJfkHlQ?si=80d8M4e5e1y0P9UF) to a recent podcast in which a historian specializing in authoritarianism outlines how Trump is following the standard playbook of leaders, like Putin and Xi, who have consolidated power and made their countries less democratic for a prolonged period of time.

A key difference between the last time Trump was president and this time is that last time the military, the DOJ, and other government departments opposed his illegal requests on the grounds that their highest loyalty was to the U.S. Constitution. Trump has stated specifically he wants to avoid that resistance this time, which is why he is appointing his most die hard loyalists to the top positions in defense, intelligence, and Justice. That should be an enormous red flag.

Democracy is actually quite rare in the historical context, and there are many example of democratic governments turning into authoritarian governments. We should not assume that history is on our side.

Finally, it is clear that the current global trend is toward less democratic and more authoritarian governments. That may be because of information manipulation, globalization backlash, or other reasons. But it is the current direction of things.

This is why I direct >90% of my giving to farm animal causes like THL, MFA, and the EA animal welfare fund.

Fantastic piece. A lot to think about and digest. Thank you for writing this.

How can we best follow your work? Do you have a social media handle or email list we should subscribe to?

The FTX episode reminds me of Theranos, in that if I try to take a charitable view of what the founder was doing in each case, I could postulate they believed they needed to "fake it till you make it." In fact, this is advice I have even heard successful entrepreneurs give other aspiring entrepreneurs: "fake it till you make it." 

Starting a new company is such a daunting and overwhelming task that those who attempt to do it are going to self select for certain traits. They will tend to be over confident in themselves, they will start endeavors without being sure of their ability to execute on them, they will be reluctant to give up in the face of evidence that they should, they will be charismatic salespeople who can convince others to join them in their efforts and customers to buy their products, and they will believe the ends justify the means in making the company succeed.

The biggest lesson of FTX (for me) is that given who entrepreneurship self selects for, and given the inherent challenges in entrepreneurship and the incentives that it creates, the ground is perhaps fertile for fraud and other immorality.

Obviously entrepreneurship is still important and I do not mean to discourage anyone with a good idea from pursuing it, but we should all be aware of the pressures it creates and the vulnerabilities to bad behavior.

Thank you for putting this together!

I don’t even think we are disagreeing anymore.

Obviously I agree that there can be disagreement on what are the best interventions. That is not a criticism of EA. The world is messy.

But let’s take a thought experiment in which once you decide that you wanted to use your limited resources to improve the world as effectively as possible, you could know exactly how to do that. In that world, I don’t think it should be controversial to do that thing.

To me, that is what EA philosophy is: a goal of improving the world in the most effective way possible. And that is why I say EA should not be controversial.

In the real world we don’t know what the best interventions so we have to make judgements and do research, etc. But to me those are all tactical issues.

The whole point is that to turn it into an either/or question is ridiculous.

The drowning example you give is good because it’s a real one. Drowning is actually the leading cause of death amongst 1-4 year olds (https://www.cdc.gov/drowning/facts/index.html) in the United States. Which is why people with backyard swimming pools have to put fences around them.

But if you saw a child drowning in a swimming pool and refused to save it because you could save more lives in the long run by addressing the systemic issues that make drowning the leading cause of death amongst 1-4 year olds in the United States, well…that’s what Crary’s argument is.

The basis for a lot of utilitarian arguments is the drowning child example (https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/child-in-the-pond/).

Alice Crary’s argument seems to suggest that if you pass a child drowning in a pond, you should let the child drown, because your resources and energy would be better directed at addressing the systemic issues that cause drowning. For example, why is there no fence around the pond? Why aren’t parents more diligent about keeping their toddlers away from ponds. It would be better to hurry past the pond and let the child drown so you can focus on these root cause issues.