Impressive work, but it is not difficult to convince people of the risks of capitalism when it comes to facing longtermism challenges. We have the "social market economy", in which there are supposedly democratic controls on capitalism.
But from an imaginative perspective, an alternative to capitalism based on a purely altruistic economy is not inconceivable. An altruistic economy should not be confused with a socialist economy (legislation for the common good), but rather should be related to individualistic cultural conceptions such as the ethics of caring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_care

Since EA is an organization that promotes prosocial activity outside of politics, it is worth asking whether it would not be more valuable to consider the non-political factors that enable social change. Note that there is a flaw in the Darwinian (and Machiavellian) interpretation of human relations because it presupposes that power relations are not affected by internalized cultural changes over time. How can Marx or Machiavelli explain that the oppressing classes that crushed Spartacus gave in to British workers  unions in the Victorian era?
In fact, Darwin might have been able to explain it with his vision of "group selection."
Let's look beyond politics.

Whether EA is considered an autonomous social movement or part of a more complex social change movement, it cannot be considered "conservative" as long as it is based on a rational analysis of human relations that it considers perfectible in the future in the sense of extreme prosociality. Without traditions and without prejudices, conservatism is not possible.

However, every movement for social change appeals to the logical judgment of individuals and it may be quite obvious that a non-political social change would not be part of the threats that are usually perceived by many conservatives.

In a civilizational sense, the best interpretation of a movement like EA is as part of a cultural evolution - moral evolution - that promotes empathy, benevolence and control of aggression. This will not be seen as a threat by all conservatives.

It is possible to draw a parallel with the monastic phenomenon in the Middle Ages. Nobles and kings promoted communities of unconventional lifestyle where charity, poverty and control of aggression - or "sin" - were practiced. Nothing could be further from the lifestyle of conservative elites. Promoting virtue was considered to pacify the social order.

This is a question of cultural evolution. Infanticide was acceptable in Old Rome - but not tolerable to early Christians. It would be difficult to explain the cultural understanding of the right to life in each specific case. In my opinion, those of us interested in moral progress should put first the mutual perception of empathy and benevolence as the basis of human relations of extreme trust.

I understand "democratic culture" as a conventionalism referring to the consideration of rights and freedoms in Western societies (say, the European Union). The right to abortion as part of "Human Rights" is controversial in other contexts.

Defining inequality as violence or aggression is effectively a stance in favor of violence, because it makes it impossible to discuss alternatives.

The answer to violence does not have to be violent. On the contrary, an understanding of the phenomenon of violence (including the phenomenon of economic inequality as systemically exploitative) must lead us to establish non-violent cultural alternatives. This implies that those who are singled out as exploiters are not so from the point of view of distributive justice, but as defenders of a different cultural model that assumes a certain degree of aggression as inevitable. It is not about class struggle or about legislating economic equality, but about promoting altruistic cultural development in the sense of developing empathy, benevolence and mutual care also on an economic way.
On the other hand, those who defend equality in the sense of a rational allocation of resources according to the needs of individuals will have to demonstrate that their cultural model is also capable of generating economic efficiency. Something that the supporters of class struggle have demonstrably failed to do.

In a world without evil, without aggression (prosocial) there will be no avoidable deaths from malaria, there will be no abortions, and the diet will be vegan.
Of all the courses of action that an individual committed to a prosocial culture can follow TODAY, which one offers us the greatest guarantee of helping to build a better world?

Those who oppose abortion come into conflict with the personal freedom of women in the context of today's democratic culture.

We have ample evidence from the course of history that some or many animal rights advocates are not always prosocial when it comes to human suffering.

All the avoidable suffering of our fellow human beings has an unequivocal character in terms of the emotions of empathy, compassion, and affection that are the psychological basis of the non-aggressive, benevolent, and rationally introspective ethos of a possible prosocial culture that can already begin to be built today as an active minority.

The latter - along the lines of "virtue ethics"? - seems to me to be a more effective altruism.

It certainly doesn't seem like a trivial debate to me. Thanks for the previous statements.

Neither deontology nor utilitarianism: virtue ethics. It is the only one that considers human behavior in its sense of cultural evolution. Kant's deontology did not allow him to take a rational and impartial position on ethical issues such as women's rights, extreme social inequality or slavery, in which he was dependent on the prejudices of his time. And consequentialism-utilitarianism is not consequentialist enough if it ignores that all human action depends on internalized patterns of moral behavior: lifestyle, ethos.
If we want to develop the greatest good for the greatest number, the most convenient thing is to develop the most benevolent, empathetic and rational human behavior possible as a lifestyle and foundation of a prosocial culture.

Hunger, malnutrition... it is just a question of food. What a shame!

https://unequivocal21.blogspot.com/