Hi James

Thanks for this moving and deeply considered response. I too am impressed with the way effective altruism has resonated with so many. I agree with some of the tenets of the movement, especially it’s recognition and starting premise that all lives have equal value.

That said, where you emphasized the “science” of effective altruism, that’s actually where I find it doesn’t work for me. The EA movement seeks to identify and deploy quantifiable metrics for the efficiency of dollars spent. This is one way to bring science into the equation of giving. But it doesn’t work for me (as I alluded to in my piece) because, for me, in my philanthropy, efficiency is not the highest value. It matters, but , for me, doesn’t hold primacy.

There is also a lot of relevant science on giving from neuroscience, psychology, and even political science that EA doesn’t consider. That’s not a criticism of EA per se, just an observation that it’s not the only science that matters.

In the context of how I view our social economy, with multiple ways to use financial resources and a range of organizations to support, I try to use my charitable dollars where I think long term, general support to organizations that don’t attract investments or repeating revenue, are going to be most helpful.

I’m glad you find EA clarifying and inspiring. Thanks for doing what you do.