I might have been busy thinking about mowing the lawns next day, or some such, on September 19 because I missed the chance to attend a conference on “effective altruism”.
The one-day conference, organised by an outfit called Effective Altruism Aotearoa New Zealand, was held at the National Library of New Zealand (not too far from my home).
According to the publicity, it aimed to bring together people from across the country “who are interested in doing the most good for others”.
Whether you’re completely new to effective altruism or already actively involved, the Summit is an opportunity to explore big global challenges, hear from people working on them, and connect with others who care about having a meaningful impact.
Google gave us this definition:
Longtermists tackle problems that people who will be alive in the future might face, and effective altruists in this camp often emphasise the importance of trying to reduce the probability of artificial intelligence killing everyone on Earth, nuclear war, pandemics, climate change and other existential risks.
They were mentioned by Jacob Bauer, Lecturer of Philosophy, University of Dayton, in an article in The Conversation in 2023.
Effective altruism is an intellectual and charitable movement that aspires to find the best ways to help others. People dedicated to it rely on evidence and rational arguments to identify what they can do to make the most progress toward solving the world’s most pressing problems, such as reducing malnutrition and malaria while increasing access to health care.
A group of intellectuals, including the Oxford University philosophers William MacAskill and Toby Ord, coined the term in 2011. The movement was inspired in part by the philosopher Peter Singer, who has argued for an obligation to help those in extreme poverty since the 1970s.
Numerous effective altruist nonprofits have sprung up over the past 12 years. They research and implement ways to help others that they think will make a big difference, such as by providing people in low-income countries with malaria-fighting bed nets, safe water dispensers and low-cost cataract surgeries to restore eyesight.
New Zealand Initiative chief economist Eric Crampton mused on effective altruism more than 10 years ago, after Professor Stringer had visited Christchurch.
Professor Singer argues that, for many people, the best we can do is to take the highest-paying job we can, live simply but not in a hermit’s cave, and donate as much as possible to the charities that can do the most good.
The hedge fund trader living in a small downtown apartment and donating large amounts to effective charities saving and improving lives abroad does far more good for the world than he could have by taking a job that’s more commonly associated with helping people – or by standing on street corners holding a bucket.
Having digested Google’s rundown on effective altruism and the articles mentioned above, PoO uncovered an article in Forbes magazine which said the Trump administration rarely spoke with one voice…
But lately, a chorus of Trump officials has all been in harmony about one thing: Effective Altruism is bad.
This article examined how “this once obscure philosophical movement” had wound up in the crosshairs of some of the most powerful US officials and their efforts to argue against AI regulation.
Many of those who subscribe to the effective altruism philosophy had gravitated towards working at the top AI companies – OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind.
They have done so because of a fervent belief in both AI’s possibility to advance humanity, and its potential to cause great harm. In particular, many EA adherents are drawn to work on AI safety, believing that unless methods are found to ensure advanced AI systems remain obedient to human instructions and human values, this powerful technology has a good chance of destroying humanity.
EA’s close affiliation with fears about advanced AI leading to human extinction—often branded “AI doomerism”— has brought the group into conflict with the Trump administration, which is racing to keep AI regulation off the table over fears of ceding ground to China in the AI race and concerns that any slowdown in the pace of AI development could tank the U.S. stock market, which has been buoyed by the runup in shares of AI-related stocks.
Over-riding the warnings from industry leaders, Trump has scoffed at calls for an international slowdown.
Last week, The Economist published an article headed Effective altruism is this century’s biggest idea – The movement is admirable, but dangerous
Perhaps it was this which prompted a friend of PoO to ask Google AI to rate New Zealand political parties on their degree of Effective Altruism.
He emailed us the answer:
Effective Altruism (EA)—the philosophical and social movement that advocates using evidence and reasoning to determine the most effective ways to benefit others—has a fascinating, albeit mostly indirect, relationship with New Zealand politics. Rather than explicitly adopting the “Effective Altruism” label, Kiwi political parties exhibit alignment through shared philosophical frameworks, such as evidence-based policy, existential risk mitigation, and long-termism. [1]
The standing of EA principles across New Zealand’s major and minor parties can be broken down from highest to lowest alignment:
Whether you’re completely new to effective altruism or already actively involved, the Summit is an opportunity to explore big global challenges, hear from people working on them, and connect with others who care about having a meaningful impact.
Google gave us this definition:
- Effective altruism is a philosophical and social movement that uses evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible, and then takes action on that basis. [1]
- Impartiality: Valuing all lives and interests equally, regardless of distance, nationality, or species.
- Prioritization: Comparing different causes and interventions using quantitative evidence to find where resources do the most good (such as cost per life saved).
- Tractability and neglectedness: Focusing on problems that are solvable and where additional effort or funding is currently lacking. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Longtermists tackle problems that people who will be alive in the future might face, and effective altruists in this camp often emphasise the importance of trying to reduce the probability of artificial intelligence killing everyone on Earth, nuclear war, pandemics, climate change and other existential risks.
They were mentioned by Jacob Bauer, Lecturer of Philosophy, University of Dayton, in an article in The Conversation in 2023.
Effective altruism is an intellectual and charitable movement that aspires to find the best ways to help others. People dedicated to it rely on evidence and rational arguments to identify what they can do to make the most progress toward solving the world’s most pressing problems, such as reducing malnutrition and malaria while increasing access to health care.
A group of intellectuals, including the Oxford University philosophers William MacAskill and Toby Ord, coined the term in 2011. The movement was inspired in part by the philosopher Peter Singer, who has argued for an obligation to help those in extreme poverty since the 1970s.
Numerous effective altruist nonprofits have sprung up over the past 12 years. They research and implement ways to help others that they think will make a big difference, such as by providing people in low-income countries with malaria-fighting bed nets, safe water dispensers and low-cost cataract surgeries to restore eyesight.
New Zealand Initiative chief economist Eric Crampton mused on effective altruism more than 10 years ago, after Professor Stringer had visited Christchurch.
Professor Singer argues that, for many people, the best we can do is to take the highest-paying job we can, live simply but not in a hermit’s cave, and donate as much as possible to the charities that can do the most good.
The hedge fund trader living in a small downtown apartment and donating large amounts to effective charities saving and improving lives abroad does far more good for the world than he could have by taking a job that’s more commonly associated with helping people – or by standing on street corners holding a bucket.
Having digested Google’s rundown on effective altruism and the articles mentioned above, PoO uncovered an article in Forbes magazine which said the Trump administration rarely spoke with one voice…
But lately, a chorus of Trump officials has all been in harmony about one thing: Effective Altruism is bad.
This article examined how “this once obscure philosophical movement” had wound up in the crosshairs of some of the most powerful US officials and their efforts to argue against AI regulation.
Many of those who subscribe to the effective altruism philosophy had gravitated towards working at the top AI companies – OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind.
They have done so because of a fervent belief in both AI’s possibility to advance humanity, and its potential to cause great harm. In particular, many EA adherents are drawn to work on AI safety, believing that unless methods are found to ensure advanced AI systems remain obedient to human instructions and human values, this powerful technology has a good chance of destroying humanity.
EA’s close affiliation with fears about advanced AI leading to human extinction—often branded “AI doomerism”— has brought the group into conflict with the Trump administration, which is racing to keep AI regulation off the table over fears of ceding ground to China in the AI race and concerns that any slowdown in the pace of AI development could tank the U.S. stock market, which has been buoyed by the runup in shares of AI-related stocks.
Over-riding the warnings from industry leaders, Trump has scoffed at calls for an international slowdown.
Last week, The Economist published an article headed Effective altruism is this century’s biggest idea – The movement is admirable, but dangerous
Perhaps it was this which prompted a friend of PoO to ask Google AI to rate New Zealand political parties on their degree of Effective Altruism.
He emailed us the answer:
Effective Altruism (EA)—the philosophical and social movement that advocates using evidence and reasoning to determine the most effective ways to benefit others—has a fascinating, albeit mostly indirect, relationship with New Zealand politics. Rather than explicitly adopting the “Effective Altruism” label, Kiwi political parties exhibit alignment through shared philosophical frameworks, such as evidence-based policy, existential risk mitigation, and long-termism. [1]
The standing of EA principles across New Zealand’s major and minor parties can be broken down from highest to lowest alignment:
1. The Opportunity Party (High Alignment)
The Opportunity Party (Opportunity) holds the highest implicit alignment with Effective Altruism principles in New Zealand. [1, 2]
- Evidence-Based “Wonkishness”: Founded by economist Gareth Morgan as an “anti-establishment party of experts,” Opportunity intentionally rejects traditional left-right ideology. Instead, it leans heavily into “radical centrism” and policies backed strictly by data and empirical evidence—a methodology that directly mirrors EA’s core approach to evaluating global cause areas. In fact, Effective Altruism NZ has previously run educational workshops specifically exploring things like land economics and Georgism, mirroring Opportunity’s flagship Land Value Tax (LVT) reform. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
- AI Safety and Future Risks: Led by sustainable business expert Qiulae Wong, Opportunity has actively stepped into the EA “long-termism” lane by releasing targeted policies on AI governance. Wong has explicitly called for New Zealand to become an active participant in global AI safety and regulatory frameworks, arguing that a “sit back and watch approach is just not appropriate anymore.” [1, 2]
2. The Green Party (Moderate-High Alignment)
The Green Party aligns strongly with EA, but specifically within two primary verticals: animal welfare and biosecurity/climate catastrophe. [1, 2]
- Animal Welfare: EA places a heavy focus on reducing farm animal suffering (often highlighted in EA NZ events, film screenings, and factory farming campaigns). The Greens are the most prominent parliamentary voice advocating for the systemic legislative shifts that match these goals, such as banning cruel farming practices and live exports. [1, 2]
- The “James Shaw” Legacy: Former Green co-leader James Shaw brought a consultant-minded, pragmatic approach to environmental economics that many centrist EA supporters resonated with. However, parts of the broader Green party base occasionally clash with EA’s rigid, mathematically driven utilitarian calculations, preferring systemic, rights-based, and grassroots solutions. [1]
The libertarian-leaning ACT Party has a highly selective relationship with EA concepts, intersecting almost exclusively on existential risk and economic efficiency.
- Global Catastrophic Risks: ACT politicians have historically engaged with topics surrounding pandemic preparedness and biosecurity, evaluating government responses through the lens of cost-benefit efficiency.
- Divergent Foundations: While both ACT and EA focus heavily on cost-effectiveness and maximizing the return on capital spent, ACT’s philosophy is rooted strictly in individual liberty and free-market capitalism. This fundamentally contrasts with EA’s utilitarian foundation, which is highly comfortable with heavy public or philanthropic intervention to maximize global well-being.
New Zealand’s two major institutional parties, National and Labour, generally treat EA principles purely transactionally through the machinery of standard bureaucratic governance.
- The Treasury Lens: Both parties rely heavily on the New Zealand Treasury’s frameworks to measure well-being and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of public policy. However, their short-term, three-year electoral cycles structurally discourage the core EA principle of long-termism (safeguarding the distant future from existential threats). [1, 2]
- Focus Areas: When Labour engages with global issues, it leans toward traditional international aid and equity frameworks rather than EA’s mathematical optimization. National focuses heavily on immediate domestic economic metrics and infrastructure growth, leaving very little room on its legislative agenda for niche EA focus areas like advanced AI safety or global biosecurity innovations. [1, 2, 3]
Hmm. Did you note the parties not mentioned?
The next government, no matter its colours, might consider some issues which Crampton raised with Professor Singer.
The tax credit on charitable donations, for example. Couldn’t we imagine a more generous regime where donations to effective charities earned a dollar-for-dollar tax credit?
Less money would go to the New Zealand government and more would go to improving the lives of poor people in developing countries.
Then there are the billions of dollars the government spends on transfers to relatively wealthy superannuitants in New Zealand.
This money could do far more to save and improve countless lives elsewhere…
Let’s hear Winston Peters’ thoughts on that one…
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.