[paulolc]

Sure. The one angle I am talking about is focusing on maximizing the application of money on the _things that do the most good possible_. There may be cases where financing something that will certainly not do the most good possible, on the contrary, it may cause havoc, suffering, death and destruction, like war, is the best course of action. Sacrifice sometimes is needed. Effective Altruism already proved to be a failed idea. It inspired smart and good people to justify any means for and end, just because they thought the end was ultimately good and honest (I believe that SBF was aware of the illegality of what he was doing but it was ok because it was for a good cause). EA is a virtue signalling and a god complex pit.

Of course, no one is against maximizing resources to where they are needed the most. That it should be an evidence based approach and focused on systemic change and long term solutions, rather than just alleviating symptoms. Yes, but this is just common sense. Now, naming it Altruism and adding Effective on top is just creating a banner for another Crusade like endeavor. Throw your money at us and you will be saved and your sins forgiven.