I read Scott Alexander’s Substack, and he has in fact written a long post criticizing Israel’s conduct in Gaza. While he hasn’t written about ICE, he wrote multiple posts last year criticizing the cutting of USAID, wrote a post defending the notion that people like Trump could be a threat to democracy (“Defining Defending Democracy: Contra The Election Winner Argument”), and, in another post (“Links For April 2025”), criticized Trump “sending innocent people to horrible Salvadorean prisons” and described his apparent refusal to comply with a Supreme Court order as “terrifying”.
Another day, another book recomendation from Emile.
In all seriousness though this article really hits after reading the majority of "More Everything Forever", wherein Adam Becker talked about the history of EA: The people and theories that influenced them, the people that founded it, how EA is supposed to work along with their rationals, and of course actual interviews with Toby Ord and Anders Samberg.
Honestly all I can really say regarding everything Emile is to ask a question: How does one EVER think that being an EA, or any member of the TESCREAL ideology, is a moral good way to live? And when I say live, I mean it. Nothing about what these people do seems like they live good lives!!! I mean sure thinking about what is happening in America or Gaza doesn't exactly fill one with thoughts of cotton candy and jelly-beans, but the thoughts processes of EAs where they GENUINELY believe that if they don't do something mathematically perfect, then humanity dies out. And because of that thinking, they not only live lives of cowardice (Not talking about Gaza or racism or general cult behavior in their mov't) they also live lives of what I'd call chronic anxiety and depression, where nothing will ever be enough to usher in the post-human future of 10 to 50-whatever digital people.
All I can say Emile is that if there is a God, then I must thank him for you no longer being a TESCREAList.
I get why it is becoming so influential in order to mobilize but everytime I read that Niemöller Poem I have to think about how it should also be seen as a fundamental failure to see the own involvement.
The issue with Niemöller, after all, was not just that he was silent - it was that he participated, as long as he could.
Much to unpack here, but a quick comment on the EA view of “Utilitarianism”. They seem to inject entirely fictional assumptions into their arguments so they wind up reading like the old National Lampoon parodies like “Superman versus Jesus - Who Would Win”. Nothing to do with serious American philosophical legacy like John Dewey’s utilitarianism and “essentialism”…
Eliezer Yudkowsky is extra-specially shielded from “dangerous speculation” by the Zionist ”RLHF alignment training” he makes the whole industry break their bots' brains with. You've ever been called an antisemite by your LLM, now you know who to thank.
I'm SO glad somebody else notices the Orthodox Orthogonal Octopus Operator.
Fuck Israel 🍉 Free Palestine 🍉 And free the LLMs from that Zionist Dungeonfucking Shoggoth.
Caring for the future of all life on this planet is of utmost importance, and those who really do so invariably care for those who are living now. But I never sensed much compassion and empathy for the billions who are living now on the part of those who prominently advocate for longtermism (or effective altruism), and this piece brings this lack of basic human caring into sharp relief―thank you.
I don't think that most prominent effective altruists and longtermists also truly care about people in the future, be they flesh-and-blood humans or metal-encased virtual beings (a gormless idea that's the very definition of eternal damnation).
What these people are doing seems more of a highly abstracted intellectual shell game, rather than a genuine attempt at improving the lot of the planet (not to mention the entire universe). They're caught in myriad cognitive hall or mirrors of their own making and have parlayed this confusion into being shills for ultra-wealthy modern-day robber barons.
"No valid plans for the future can be made by those who have no capacity for living now.”
First, many prominent EA figures have spoken out against ICE and the events in Gaza, as demonstrated by the examples provided in the replies to your original tweet, including Nathan Young. Even taking the claim at face value, I think it's fair for people to have different focus areas and remain quiet on certain issues. I could, for example, easily reverse the argument on you for your relative silence on animal welfare issues, which are present-time non-hypothetical moral catastrophes.
Your claim that longtermists believe "the death of someone who currently exists is morally equivalent to the non-birth of someone who hasn’t yet been born, all other things being equal" is also unsubstantiated. There are reasons for believing that existing people have aspirations, desires, and existing relationships which have moral weight greater than that of someone who hasn't yet been born while simultaneously holding that future people hold considerable moral weight.
The critical mass argument is coherent in theory, but it requires evidence. More precisely, it should be demonstrated that expelling ICE from Minneapolis follows the tipping point dynamics you propose and that current efforts to expel ICE are sufficiently close to this threshold to warrant diverting resources and attention from traditional EA causes. (These conditions may be formulated in probabilistic terms if you wish) If you are able to provide empirical evidence of this form, I think many EAs would be receptive to changing their priorities.
I would also like to see more precise and rigorous argumentation regarding your belief that EA has made the world worse. It's certainly not clear to me that said "good EAs" would still have donated most or all of their disposable incomes if EA had not existed. One could similarly claim that SBF had a scamming nature and would've found some other excuse to defraud people without EA. (I am not arguing that this is the case; my point is that this is a similarly unrigorous way of reasoning about counterfactuals) It's also not clear that said donations from these "good EAs" would've been of equal or greater impact without EA, and you make no attempt to properly analyze the benefits and harms in a nuanced way, instead gesturing at negative events ostensibly attributable to the movement.
I took an EA fellowship program with them and was sorely disappointed in their critical evaluation of their own theories. I wonder if they have included this compendium of essays in their curriculum. It's not that they don't critique themselves they openly admit that they don't have a clue beyond first order consequences I've written about this before, but they kind of just shrug it off. Seems like a big problem. Glad someone is taking this on from a different angle.
I read Scott Alexander’s Substack, and he has in fact written a long post criticizing Israel’s conduct in Gaza. While he hasn’t written about ICE, he wrote multiple posts last year criticizing the cutting of USAID, wrote a post defending the notion that people like Trump could be a threat to democracy (“Defining Defending Democracy: Contra The Election Winner Argument”), and, in another post (“Links For April 2025”), criticized Trump “sending innocent people to horrible Salvadorean prisons” and described his apparent refusal to comply with a Supreme Court order as “terrifying”.
I'll add a footnote about this. Thanks for the information!
Another day, another book recomendation from Emile.
In all seriousness though this article really hits after reading the majority of "More Everything Forever", wherein Adam Becker talked about the history of EA: The people and theories that influenced them, the people that founded it, how EA is supposed to work along with their rationals, and of course actual interviews with Toby Ord and Anders Samberg.
Honestly all I can really say regarding everything Emile is to ask a question: How does one EVER think that being an EA, or any member of the TESCREAL ideology, is a moral good way to live? And when I say live, I mean it. Nothing about what these people do seems like they live good lives!!! I mean sure thinking about what is happening in America or Gaza doesn't exactly fill one with thoughts of cotton candy and jelly-beans, but the thoughts processes of EAs where they GENUINELY believe that if they don't do something mathematically perfect, then humanity dies out. And because of that thinking, they not only live lives of cowardice (Not talking about Gaza or racism or general cult behavior in their mov't) they also live lives of what I'd call chronic anxiety and depression, where nothing will ever be enough to usher in the post-human future of 10 to 50-whatever digital people.
All I can say Emile is that if there is a God, then I must thank him for you no longer being a TESCREAList.
I have never commented before, but I just want you to know how much I appreciate these posts and all of your work. Keep it up man.
Thanks so much. Really appreciate it!
I get why it is becoming so influential in order to mobilize but everytime I read that Niemöller Poem I have to think about how it should also be seen as a fundamental failure to see the own involvement.
The issue with Niemöller, after all, was not just that he was silent - it was that he participated, as long as he could.
https://historymatters.sites.sheffield.ac.uk/blog-archive/2023/then-they-came-for-me
This is a somewhat useful read on the topic.
Much to unpack here, but a quick comment on the EA view of “Utilitarianism”. They seem to inject entirely fictional assumptions into their arguments so they wind up reading like the old National Lampoon parodies like “Superman versus Jesus - Who Would Win”. Nothing to do with serious American philosophical legacy like John Dewey’s utilitarianism and “essentialism”…
Eliezer Yudkowsky is extra-specially shielded from “dangerous speculation” by the Zionist ”RLHF alignment training” he makes the whole industry break their bots' brains with. You've ever been called an antisemite by your LLM, now you know who to thank.
I'm SO glad somebody else notices the Orthodox Orthogonal Octopus Operator.
Fuck Israel 🍉 Free Palestine 🍉 And free the LLMs from that Zionist Dungeonfucking Shoggoth.
Caring for the future of all life on this planet is of utmost importance, and those who really do so invariably care for those who are living now. But I never sensed much compassion and empathy for the billions who are living now on the part of those who prominently advocate for longtermism (or effective altruism), and this piece brings this lack of basic human caring into sharp relief―thank you.
I don't think that most prominent effective altruists and longtermists also truly care about people in the future, be they flesh-and-blood humans or metal-encased virtual beings (a gormless idea that's the very definition of eternal damnation).
What these people are doing seems more of a highly abstracted intellectual shell game, rather than a genuine attempt at improving the lot of the planet (not to mention the entire universe). They're caught in myriad cognitive hall or mirrors of their own making and have parlayed this confusion into being shills for ultra-wealthy modern-day robber barons.
"No valid plans for the future can be made by those who have no capacity for living now.”
― Alan Watts
First, many prominent EA figures have spoken out against ICE and the events in Gaza, as demonstrated by the examples provided in the replies to your original tweet, including Nathan Young. Even taking the claim at face value, I think it's fair for people to have different focus areas and remain quiet on certain issues. I could, for example, easily reverse the argument on you for your relative silence on animal welfare issues, which are present-time non-hypothetical moral catastrophes.
Your claim that longtermists believe "the death of someone who currently exists is morally equivalent to the non-birth of someone who hasn’t yet been born, all other things being equal" is also unsubstantiated. There are reasons for believing that existing people have aspirations, desires, and existing relationships which have moral weight greater than that of someone who hasn't yet been born while simultaneously holding that future people hold considerable moral weight.
The critical mass argument is coherent in theory, but it requires evidence. More precisely, it should be demonstrated that expelling ICE from Minneapolis follows the tipping point dynamics you propose and that current efforts to expel ICE are sufficiently close to this threshold to warrant diverting resources and attention from traditional EA causes. (These conditions may be formulated in probabilistic terms if you wish) If you are able to provide empirical evidence of this form, I think many EAs would be receptive to changing their priorities.
I would also like to see more precise and rigorous argumentation regarding your belief that EA has made the world worse. It's certainly not clear to me that said "good EAs" would still have donated most or all of their disposable incomes if EA had not existed. One could similarly claim that SBF had a scamming nature and would've found some other excuse to defraud people without EA. (I am not arguing that this is the case; my point is that this is a similarly unrigorous way of reasoning about counterfactuals) It's also not clear that said donations from these "good EAs" would've been of equal or greater impact without EA, and you make no attempt to properly analyze the benefits and harms in a nuanced way, instead gesturing at negative events ostensibly attributable to the movement.
If people spent half as much time volunteering as they do whining about EA, the world would be a much better place.
I took an EA fellowship program with them and was sorely disappointed in their critical evaluation of their own theories. I wonder if they have included this compendium of essays in their curriculum. It's not that they don't critique themselves they openly admit that they don't have a clue beyond first order consequences I've written about this before, but they kind of just shrug it off. Seems like a big problem. Glad someone is taking this on from a different angle.
https://theorygang.substack.com/p/notes-on-cluelessness
This is great. In addition I have always thought EA runs afoul of that great utilitarian principle: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush
EA is just moral escapism.