7 December 2019 | New Scientist | 43evidence and reason to maximise the effect
of our philanthropy caught on and today
there is a global community of effective
altruists, many of whom meet at international
conferences to discuss strategy.Extreme lengths
Effective altruists take many different paths.
Some move to countries where they can live
more cheaply and thus give more money away.
Some choose an approach called earning to
give, where they get high-paying jobs so they
can give more to effective charities. Others
conduct research to better understand
which altruistic approaches work. One
of the Athena Hotel’s guests, for instance,
studies the sentience of invertebrate animals.
His idea is that encouraging people to think
more about the suffering of other animals
can change how we treat them.
A few people take effective altruism to
extreme lengths. In her book on the subject,
Strangers Drowning, journalist Larissa
MacFarquhar wrote about a young man she
calls Aaron Pitkin. He chose the cause of
chicken welfare on the basis that it was a sure
way to alleviate a huge amount of suffering.
The trouble was that he pursued the cause
so single-mindedly that it affected those close
to him. He fell in love with a woman named
“Jen”, who already worked for a charity, and
they began a life together, committed to doing
good as a couple. Gradually, however, Pitkin
became more extreme, insisting they both
adopt a frugal lifestyle and a strict vegan diet.
Eventually, he refused to divert any time from
the cause – even to do the dishes or spend time
with Jen. When she asked him for a portion of
his substantial inheritance to pay off the credit
card debts that were tormenting her, he
said no. After a couple of years, they separated,
and Jen went to Paris to gorge on cheese.
I didn’t know what to make of Pitkin. On the
face of it, he wasn’t a nice guy. But part of me...better
humanity. One thing is for sure: doing good
is more complicated than you might think.
The origins of effective altruism can be
traced to a thought experiment devised in the
1970s by philosopher Peter Singer. Imagine
you walk past a shallow pond and see a child
drowning. Should you wade in and save the
infant, even though it means getting your
clothes muddy? Most people will answer yes
in a split second. But if we do it in this case,
Singer argued, why wouldn’t we do the same
for people dying of malaria or from unsafe
drinking water or any other of the easily
preventable poverty-related conditions that
persist in parts of the developing world?
Singer’s point was clear. If you are born in
the West, this throw of the dice makes you one
of the richest 5 per cent of people in the world
and gives you the chance to save thousands
of lives with almost zero effort. All you have
to do is give away a small proportion of your
income. Even the money otherwise spent on
a coffee would make a difference.
In 2009, Singer set up an organisation called
The Life You Can Save to encourage people todonate to charities that have the greatest
impact. His argument inspired several similar
organisations. There was Giving What We Can,
which encourages people to give 10 per cent
of their income to places where it will do the
most good for the rest of their lives. Then came
80,000 Hours, which gives advice on how to
get the maximum altruistic effect from the
hours the average person will spend working
in their career. The idea that we can wield >“ Even the money
spent on a cup of
coffee could make
a difference”