SBF, FTX, EA & LT: my reflections and asking some tough questions about effective alturism and power
How did helping to buy some mosquito nets bring me to this?
A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast; But the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
-Proverbs 12:10
Of darkness, the future and EA
There are some tough questions to be asked about the relationship between effective altruism and power. As a relative outsider to the movement -I mostly use it to plan charitable giving to mosquito net organizations- who is sympathetic, yet skeptical, I thought I’d try my hand.
A little while ago I wrote an essay on longtermism and "dark longtermism". The thesis of that essay was arguing against some of the darker implications some people argue emerge from longtermism, for example, support for political authoritarianism, and favoring the lives of richer people over poorer people.
For the purpose of the article I granted, in arguendo that all these measures would be more likely to get us to some kind of transhuman future. I then argued that we still shouldn’t take these “dark longtermist” measures because the values we adopt now shape the future. We all want a future with quintillions of flourishing human lives, sure, but we have very different conceptions of what flourishing means [most of us aren’t just hedonic utilitarians in extremis]. My idea of what flourishing means is probably quite different from, say, Peter Thiel’s. I am more likely to get what I want with respect to the future by seeking allies among the broadly humanistic, than among those who would trade poorer lives for richer lives, or those who would try to implement a reactionary dictatorship.
All true! But I was being too generous. I was delicately avoiding the bigger issue so as not to be rude- and this applies as a critique to EA as well as longtermism. It’s actually not true that we all care about reaching some kind of utopian future. Some people only give a fuck about themselves, or themselves and select other people. A disproportionate number of them have an enormous amount of money. If you ally yourself with the powers that be, these people will hijack you.
Both EA and longtermism have to grapple with the following facts. These facts are well established, and have been recognized by many before, but in light of the SBF fiasco it is worth spelling them out.:
Rich people are broadly speaking, invested in the existing power structure.
Further social progress in the future, a more egalitarian society that cares more about marginal humans and even, probably, yes, animals too, may be possible.
Most of that progress will be resisted by at least elements of the existing power structure.
Rich people are using their connections with EA and other forms of philanthropy, real or chimerical to try and prop up their own position, and, implicitly or deliberately, the position of others like them. Critiques of billionaire philanthropy, its tax, reputational and political dimensions, have, at this point, been done to death.
Rich people, despite being powerful, are often not popular. They represent, paradoxically, a reputational risk to EA, and to longtermism, both projects that are meant to span hundreds of generations. Being associated with what, in the future, is seen as muck, is a danger with a very long half-life.
No one is above being dazzled by wealth and charisma, least of all the person who thinks they are. Even if you are immune in some contexts, you will not be in others.
Agents are not solidities. Social movements are altered by the directions they move in. Contemporary decision theory treats the agent as absolutely rigid (with the exception of beliefs), but this isn’t true. Our goals are altered by our actions. We do not just maximize our utility function, we shape it. Utilitarians are particularly vulnerable to this kind of thinking- treating the actor as if they were acting from outside time and society. For humans, a long-term separation of means and ends probably isn’t possible, and consequentialism needs to grapple with this.
At a group level, where the question of who joins and leaves a movement is in play, the unity of means and ends is even more true. Think about the kind of people who join a movement with affiliations to power, their motivations, and how they will shape the vector of the movement.
And again, thing of the reputational risk such people pose, especially on the scale of centuries, as we look back on human progress and its barriers.
Is there an outside to politics? Is there a way of helping people that doesn’t tie you to ongoing social struggle one way or the other? Maybe, to a degree. But if you are working with power brokers, and the wealthy are always power brokers, you have not succeeded in getting outside.
Well over a hundred years ago, there were a bunch of people who were very interested in how the unfolding of reason could help improve society. They were, in a very loose sense, a bit like the rationalist orbit today. They were called Hegelians. Eventually -and I’m being very loose with my intellectual history here- it became clear that there were real divisions about how the world should go- real splits between different interests. The Hegelians then split into the left and right Hegelians.
The self in the wind
The first reflection is intensely personal. I have always thought that most evil arises from a kind of misunderstanding. Indeed as an OCD sufferer, one of my greatest fears is that I’ll do something wrong, and just sort of not notice until it’s too late.
Even as I’ve worried about doing the wrong thing, I’ve tried to take pity on those who have done the wrong by trying to understand the stories they might have been fooled by in their own mind. Yet as I’ve reflected on that, I’ve been terrified about what it might say of me as person, that I sought mercy. Do I just want to live in a merciful moral universe because I want to create a moral universe that could excuse me if the things I’m afraid I might have unknowingly done, I have indeed done?
I saw a line of criticism once on Twitter about an author who’d told stories filled with reconciliation, and was later revealed to have done terrible things:
”She wanted a softer world, because she wanted a world soft enough to forgive her”.
Now, SBF wrote of his own actions:
“It was never the intention, sometimes life creeps up on you”
He wrote of doing a series of things, each seemingly harmless, but collectively adding up to something dark.
Except… He also expressed very little remorse for the outcomes of his actions. It is clear then that, on some level, this is a rationalization- either intended for himself, or for the public or both. It is clear that this isn’t a case of a basically good intentioned person being led astray through poor moral reasoning or impulse, because if it was, he’d feel bad about it afterwards.
So I’d created a narrative of how a basically good person might do bad things, only to hear a basically bad person ( again, we know he’s basically bad because he doesn’t feel remorse ) use it as an excuse for what he’d done.
To hear your fears expressed in the mouth of villainy as an excuse is terrifying.
I do think it’s true that we all face a great deal of moral uncertainty- we don’t really know if we’ve hurt others, and if we’ve hurt others culpably. Perhaps it seems to us like we haven’t, but it would seem that way to us regardless because of our moral blind spots. All we can do is hope and pray we’ve been good people, and get on with the business of trying to do good thoughtfully.
Some quick typos you might want to correct:
> My idea of what flourishing means is probably quite different from, say, Peter *Thiel’s.*
>If you ally ourselves with the powers that be, we you being hijacked by these people.
Not quite sure what you mean on this second one but I think you dropped a word, and this line seems pretty important to your first point.
>*Utilitarians* are particularly vulnerable to this kind of thinking- treating the actor as if they were acting from outside time and society.
***
This was a really lovely set of reflections though! Your last point is probably going to stick with me for a while:
> Even as I’ve worried about doing the wrong thing, I’ve tried to take pity on those who have done the wrong by trying to understand the stories they might have been fooled by in their own mind. Yet as I’ve reflected on that, I’ve been terrified about what it might say of me as person, that I sought mercy. Do I just want to live in a merciful moral universe because I want to create a moral universe that could excuse me if the things I’m afraid I might have unknowingly done, I have indeed done?
I share this fear. I'm not sure what to do about it other than to keep being charitable and merciful. I prefer a world where there is enough slack to forgive mistakes over a world where there is no charity.