Political culture at the edges of Effective Altruism

An implicit problem with this sort of analysis is that it assumes the critiques are wrong, and that the current views of Effective Altruism are correct.

For instance, if we assume that systemic change towards anti-capitalist ideals actually is correct, or that taking refugees does actually have long run bad effects on culture, then the criticism of these views and the pressure on the community from political groups to adopt these views is actually a good thing, and provides a net-positive benefit for EA in the long term by providing incentives to adopt the correct views.

[Right-wing] Impacts on existential risk:

None yet, that I can think of

I'd add: "A general disbelief in the possibility of AGI/TAI due to theological convictions on the nature of sentience and intelligence."

As someone who actively promotes EA in a school, we definitely do get far more pushback from left-wing (esp. socialist) students than right-wing ones. In fact, from my fundraising experience, I'm 60% confident that conservative students are more financially generous towards EA per capita than liberal ones.

Anecdotally, I'd say I know several EAs who have shifted in the last few years from libertarianism or liberalism to conservatism, and some of them have been willing to be vocal about this in EA spaces. However, just as many of them have exited EA because they were fed up with how they weren't taken seriously. I'd estimate of the dozens of EAs I know personally quite well, and the hundreds I'm more casually familiar with, 10-20% would count as 'conservative,' or at least 'right-of-centre.' Of course, this is a change from what was before apparently zero representation for conservatives in EA. Unfortunately, I can't provide more info, as conservatives in EA are not wont to publicly discuss their political differences with EAs, because they don't feel like their opinions are taken seriously or are respected.

A problem with this post is that its conclusion that the "left" poses more "risk" is based on the number of individual perceived objections from the left. However, even if this were true, this conflates the number of separate issues with some attempt at a measure of the overall "magnitude" of risk, without taking into account the number of people complaining based on each objection, and/or the "intensity"/impact of their complaints. Which, as Halffull points out, could in any case even be a positive impact if they're identifying a real problem with EA.

I don't want to be overly pedantic, but there are also inconsistencies in this post, which make its conclusion even about the number of objections appear stronger than it is. The total number of objections from the left is increased by the separate listing of several instances of closely-related criticisms of Peter Singer (autism rights, disability rights, and others). In contrast, in the "problems with the right wing" section, similar complaints of abortion-related objections and zoophilia are listed in the same point. This inconsistency increases the apparent number of left-wing objections, a number on which the author then bases their conclusion.

I also think that research is lacking, as a recent podcast (80000 Hours? Someone help me if you can remember; it's really hard to search content on podcasts) suggested that the rise of extreme right-wing populist nationalist politics is creating risks in the nuclear warfare space.

Another thing is that the EA survey consistently suggests that most EAs are left-wing. Anecdotally, most of those I know seem to be reformist, centre-left. Both the statistics and my experience suggests that the centre left, perhaps those who are disillusioned with more extreme leftist positions such as proposals for revolutionary communism, may be a significant source of people coming into EA -- often bringing with them motivation, experience of community organising and other useful skills.

Upvoted for starting an interesting and probing conversation. I do have several nitpicks.

Perhaps the most common criticism of EA is that the movement does not collectively align with radical anticapitalist politics

Maybe I've just stopped paying attention to basic criticisms of EA along these lines, because every time all the best responses from EA to these criticisms are produced in an attempt at a good-faith debate, the critics apparently weren't interested in an actually serious dialogue that could change EA. Yet in the last couple years while the absolute amount of anticapitalism has increased, I've noticed less criticism of EA on the grounds it's not anticapitalist enough. I think EA has begun to have a cemented reputation as a community that is primarily left-leaning, and certainly welcomes anticapitalist thought, but won't on the whole mobilize towards anticapitalist activism at least until anticapitalist movements themselves produce effective means of 'systemic change.'

An autistic rights activist condemned EA by alleging incompatibility between cost-benefit analysis and disability rights

I'm skeptical friction between EA and actors who misunderstand so much has consequences bad enough to worry about, since I don't expect the criticism would be taken so seriously by anyone else to the point it would have much of an impact at all.

Key EA philosopher Peter Singer has been viewed negatively by left-wing academia after taking several steps to promote freedom of speech (Journal of Controversial Ideas, op-ed in defense of Damore)

Key EA philosopher Peter Singer was treated with hostility by left-wing people for his argument on sex with severely cognitively disabled adults

Peter Singer has been treated with hostility by traditional conservatives for his arguments on after-birth abortion and zoophilia

I'm also concerned about the impact of Singer's actions on EA itself, but I'd like to see more focused analysis exploring what the probable impacts of controversies around Singer are.

MacAskill's interview with Joe Rogan provoked hostility from viewers because of an offhand comment/joke he made about Britain deserving punishment for Brexit

William MacAskill received pushback from right-wing people for his argument in favor of taking refugees

Ditto my concerns about controversies surrounding Singer for Will as well, although I am generally much less concerned with Will than Singer.

Useful x-risk researchers, organizations and ideas are frequently viewed negatively by leftists inside and outside academia

I know some x-risk reducers who think a lot of left-wing op-eds are beginning to create a sentiment in some relevant circles that a focus on 'AI alignment as an existential risk' is a pie-in-the-sky, rich techie white guy concern about AI safety, and more concern should be put on how advances in AI will affect issues of social justice. The concern is diverting the focus of AI safety efforts away from how AGI poses an existential risk for what are perceived as more parochial concerns could be grossly net negative.

Impacts on existential risk:

None yet, that I can think of

Depending on what considers an x-risk, popular support for right-wing politicians that pursue counterproductive climate change or other anti-environmental policies, or who tend to be more hawkish, jingoistic, and nationalistic in ways that will increase the chances of great-power conflict, negatively impacts x-risk reduction efforts. It's not clear that this has a direct impact on any EA work focused on x-risks, though, which is the kind of impacts you meant to assess.

Left-wing political culture seems to be a deeper, more pressing source of harm.

I understand you provided a caveat, but I think this take still misses a lot.

• If you asked a lot of EAs, I think most of them would say right-wing political culture poses a deeper potential source of harm to EA than left-wing political culture. Left-wing political culture is only a more pressing source of harm because EA is disproportionately left-leaning, so the social networks EAs run in, and thus decision-making in EA, are more likely to be currently impacted by left-wing political culture.
• It misses what counts as 'left-wing political culture,' especially in Anglo-American discourse, as the left-wing landscape is rapidly and dramatically shifting. While most EAs are left-leaning, and a significant minority would identify with the basket socialist/radical/anti-capitalist/far-left, a greater number, perhaps a plurality, would identify as centre-left/liberal/neoliberal. From the political right, and from other angles, both these camps are 'left-wing.' Yet they're sufficiently different that when accuracy matters, as it does regarding EA, we should use more precise language to differentiate between centre-left/liberal and radical/anticapitalist/far-left 'left-wing political culture.' For example, in the U.S., it currently seems the 'progressive' political identity can apply to everyone from a neoliberal to a social democrat to a radical anticapitalist. On leftist forums I frequent, liberals are often labelled as 'centrists' or 'right-wing,' and are perceived as having more in common with conservative and moderates than they do anti-capitalists.
• Anecdotally, I would say the grassroots membership of the EA movement is more politically divergent, less moderate, and generallly "to the left" of flagship EA organizations/institutions, in that I talk to a lot of EAs who feel EA is generally still too much to the right for their liking, and actually agree with and wish EA would be much more in line with changes left-wing critics would demand of us.

This post seems somewhat misleading to me. The main question I have is: how are left wing and right wing being defined? The post seems to be defining left-wing as extreme radical anti-capitalism. As another commenter noted, if we define left wing more broadly to include centre-left political culture, then EA seems quite symbiotic with left-wing culture.

How are we defining right wing? The post seems to be defining right-wing as some kind of centre(ish)-right political culture. If we define right-wing more broadly include extreme right-wing culture which includes extreme nationalist views and an overall hostility to foreign aid, then right-wing political culture seems much less friendly to EA. EDIT: The OP does include these points, but seems to minimize them, i.e. extreme right wing culture on my understanding does not have "some attachment" to local charities, but thinks that people in "shithole" countries deserve to be in the condition they are, and would actively oppose helping these people through foreign aid.

This post seems to be defining left-wing as extreme anti capitalism while excluding moderate left-wing culture and defining right wing as excluding extreme right-wing views. The result is that left-wing culture appears more hostile than right-wing culture.

If we are comparing extreme left-wing view with less extreme right-wing views then this seems plausible, but if we compare extreme left-wing culture with extreme right-wing culture, then this is much less clear, and if we compare left-wing culture broadly defined with right wing culture broadly defined, then EA seems more at home on the left, as shown by the fact that most EAs are left leaning.

I agree with the commentators that it is worthwhile keeping in mind that some of the political pressure may in fact be correct, but I also feel that this post is valuable because it helps highlight the kinds of pressures that we are subject to.