Xialene Chang: Doing Good Better is a Privilege

The key tenet of Effective Altruism (EA) is to “do good better” by directing philanthropic efforts to cause areas that are the most i) neglected, ii) important, and iii) tractable. 80,000 Hours, a non-profit organisation partnered with EA, uses these three criteria to analyze which careers have the largest positive social impact and provide corresponding career advice to EA followers. Their work over the years has led them to advocate for the pursuit of career paths in two cause areas they deem as particularly pressing: the navigation of emerging technologies, and the research of and capacity-building for future work. EA and 80,000 Hours call these fields of work “Priority Paths.” 

To be brutally honest, after nine weeks of delving into a wealth of resources detailing how I can get my foot in the door for these Priority Paths and even receiving personal mentoring from my fellowship peers at Harvard EA, I am still somewhat at a loss about how attainable – not to mention how feasible – it is for me to pursue a career in one of these Paths. In their career guide, 80,000 Hours themselves admit that these “highest impact [career] options” they suggest “are difficult to enter; you may need to start by investing in your skills for several years, they’re focused on people who can work in English-speaking countries, there may be relatively few positions available, and some require difficult-to-obtain-credentials, such as a PhD from a top school.” Such prerequisites are a clear indication that, under EA ideology, in order to “do good better” one must necessarily be in a position of educational, financial and/or institutional privilege. 

The fact of the matter is that most people do not have the academic resources, financial stability or institutional network which affords them the option to pursue a path on the basis of how neglected, important and tractable it is at a global scale. However, the career advice given by EA and 80,000 hours hinges on the very idea that people have an active choice in deciding how they dedicate their time and effort, and by extension how effective of an altruist they are: “We think the most important single factor determining the expected impact of your work is probably the issue you choose to focus on [so] we think it’s of paramount importance to choose carefully.” But being able to choose what one does for a living, under capitalism at least, is a privilege rather than a right – and in failing to recognise this fact, EA systematically discriminates against marginalized communities in its efforts to “do good better.”

This is not to say that the ultimate vision of EA to address global issues using reason and evidence is at odds with the interests of systemically oppressed groups, but rather quite the opposite. The voices and insights of such communities will actually be crucial to creating productive and sustainable change on a large-scale. As such, EA needs to institute substantial efforts (for example, organising diverse talent pipeline programs, scholarships, and mentorship) to have diverse perspectives and equal representation in the key fields and decision making roles that they advocate for. Only in doing so can we hope to see long-term solutions to EA cause areas that will benefit everyone. 

———

Xialene is a rising Junior at Harvard and is originally from Melbourne, Australia. She studies Social Studies and Economics, and hopes to drive forward diversity, equity and inclusion as a career.