I’m sharing this because Mounk is a well-known political scientist and I think it’s useful to follow how prominent thinkers are interpreting and critiquing the movement. However, I don't think his critique in this first piece is particularly novel or well thought out.

I came across it via the Effective Environmentalism newsletter. Thanks Soem and Ruben for writing this!

Below is a summary written by ChatGPT.

In this first post, 'The Problem with Effective Altruism', Mounk acknowledges the value of what he sees as EA’s central idea—making charitable contributions more impactful—but he argues that the movement’s execution suffers from serious flaws.

He highlights three main issues:

1.  The Problem of Psychology: “earn to give” fails to consider how personal wealth might corrupt original altruistic intentions.
2. The Problem of Prediction: EA’s shift toward longtermism is questionable due to our limited ability to predict future impacts accurately. Mounk argues that prioritising far-off goals, like protecting future humanity from AI risks, may ignore simpler, more certain ways to alleviate suffering today.
3. The Problem of Providentialism: Mounk critiques EA’s tendency to elevate its adherents’ moral status, which can justify questionable actions for “the greater good.”

Despite these critiques, Mounk sees potential in a humbler version of EA, advocating for pragmatic actions that acknowledge human psychology and focus on tangible, present-day improvements. He suggests that EA’s core insights—like prioritising effective charities—are valuable and could even benefit fields like environmental activism, hinting at his next article’s topic on “effective environmentalism”.