[Rastonbury]

His argument is that effective altruism (EA) is unable to eliminate poverty and therefore it is ineffective? I mean it's an pretty empty criticism, and can be used for any sort of altruistic philosophy given that poverty is a quite an intractable problem. Eg. "Your altruism is not effective unless you work to eliminate world poverty."

Effective altruism boiled down, is getting the most value out of altruistic work as I understand it. Obviously if every child in malaria endemic areas had a net, donating to malaria foundations would not be the most effective thing to do. If we discovered an asteroid that would destroy 20% of the population, EA would probably dictate channeling of all resources to that cause.