New Vegan African East-Asian Fusion Restaurant Opening On Main

The term “effective” is always inherently relative. When we ask whether X is effective, what we always mean is whether it is efficient—whether it is as effective as possible.

One way to show that any X is not efficient is that it can be transformed, by a series of optimizing steps, into a more efficient Y—where Y is so different from X that it is just a misuse of language to talk about Y but call it X.

If we can find some Y that is strictly more effective than effective altruism, such that no sensible person would call Y “effective altruism,” effective altruism is not effective. Everyone putting time and money into EA should put time and money into Y instead.

To make this question very concrete: the question “is effective altruism effective?” is not: is it better to save a child in Laos, or wash your underwear—assuming that these have the same cost? The project here is obvious: stick with the skidmarks. (Who else will see them, anyway?) Defined in this way, effective altruism is always effective. Yay!

(I am saying “Laos” because I suspect that few Gray Mirror readers have any personal connection to, or emotional feelings about, Laos or Laotians. Apologies to any actual Laotians out there lol.)

The correct question is: if you can spread the meme that it is better to save a child in Laos than to wash your underwear, what impact will that meme have on the world?