46 | New Scientist | 7 December 2019
I can see the logic, just as I could with Pitkin’s
joyless dedication to chicken welfare. But I am
not convinced. I know with near certainty that
I can save lives by giving to charity, whereas
there is a risk that organisations like OpenAI
are fighting a threat that never materialises.
Fiennes is among those who shares my
suspicion about making AI a priority. “I think
that’s absolutely a surreal conclusion,” she says.
Open Philanthropy still gives more to global
health projects than to existential risk research,says spokesperson Michael Levine, although
he expects the balance to shift as AI research
gathers steam. Levine also acknowledges that
trying to solve the problems of future
generations isn’t obviously going to do
more good than acting on existing problems.
“We tend to agree that future generations
could be more prosperous than us, and in a
better position to solve their own problems
than we are,” he says. “But that assumes that
those futures come to exist at all. That’s why
we’re interested in the prevention of an event
that would cause a global extinction.”
I won’t be donating to avert an AI apocalypseany time soon. But having evaluated my own
altruistic habits, I do feel compelled to revisit
my decision to give only to charities backed
by the most exacting evidence.
I have resolved to give half of my monthly
donation fund to GiveDirectly, which transfers
cash straight to poor people in developing
nations (see “Gaining currency”, left). That not
only feels right, but is also well-supported by
evidence, including multiple randomised trials.
Indeed, GiveDirectly appears in GiveWell’s list
of recommended charities. The other half will
go to Innovations for Poverty Action, a group
that funds research into the interventions that
do the most good. For all that I have sought
to scrutinise effective altruism, I do think it is
worth testing new approaches.
As for the hotel in Blackpool, I’m still
intrigued, but the twinge of guilt has gone.
Effective altruists are to be commended for
making us think harder about how to do
good, and I don’t buy the idea that they are
cold and calculating. After all, they are
compelled to act by an urge to help people.
But now that I understand how they reach
their more outlandish conclusions – not least
the importance of saving the lives of people
in the far future – I feel better about my own
approach to doing good in the here and now. ❚Gaining
currency
Many charities provide services
to people in poverty. It could be
medicine, advice, tools or books.
That may sound like a better
option than giving hard cash
because you can be reasonably
sure of the outcome. If you
vaccinate a child, you know they
have biological protection. If you
give the child’s mother some cash,
you don’t know what happens
next. Or so you might think.
In 2008, four Harvard and MIT
graduate students banded
together to give very poor families
in Kenya $1000 over about a year.
The project quickly attracted
media attention, and the students
went on to found the charity
GiveDirectly. By 2017, it had
funnelled about $30 million
directly to poor people in a
handful of countries in East
Africa – and it has been keeping
track of what the money does.
The results suggest that giving
directly does lift people out of
poverty, at least in the short term.
A randomised trial conducted in
Rarieda in Kenya, for example,
showed that people who had
received money earned $270
more in the following year, on
average, than people who
had not. It seems that rise can
be attributed to the recipients
making sound investments,
such as buying land or resources.
In fact, when it comes to
fighting poverty, cash transfers
are backed by some of the most
compelling evidence out there.
Dozens of high-quality studies
show that they work. It is hardly
surprising, then, that GiveDirectly
appears on the list of the world’s
most effective charities compiled
by non-profit organisation
GiveWell (see main story).
Joshua Howgego is a features
editor at New Scientist“ Many people are
now focused on
preventing a possible
AI apocalypse”
Effective
altruists are
turning their
attention to
existential
threats such as
climate changeWASIFM
UNEM/AGEN
CE
VU/CAMERAPR
ES
S