Ineffective Altruism, or how not to save the planet.

One of the most effective misanthropic campaigns working in the UK at the moment is the movement to de-fund our cultural institutions. Organisations like Fossil Free Books, Just Stop Oil, Liberate Tate and Culture Unstained are at the heart of it. Their combination of virtue signalling, hypocrisy, intimidation and bullying is leading to a massive reduction in corporate sponsorship for the sector as existing donors with perceived links to the oil industry sever links and new corporates think twice about getting involved.

This is a national tragedy.

The irony, of course, is that the goal of these organisations is to stop the use of fossil fuels but so far their measurable achievements in this field have been ….zero.

Imagine instead a parallel universe where these authors, artists and other influencers genuinely want to prevent global warming. A world where their actions might actually stand a chance of effecting change. If they really cared there is a way they might make a difference.

There is an emerging  philanthropic movement and philosophy and now a social movement developing, especially in America, called Effective Altruism. Its core principle is to use evidence and reason to work out how to benefit as many people as possible globally and to take action on that basis alone.

Effective altruists look for global outcomes and typically focus on issues such as global health, economic inequality, animal welfare and the long term survival of humanity among others. Once an effective altruist has defined what they want to achieve they set aside their personal views and instead focus their efforts where they are likely to achieve the maximum impact.

Inevitably there is a good deal of criticism about this approach. For example some argue that it focuses too much on measurable outcomes and can neglect human feelings. Others say its global approach leads to the neglect of local issues but the one area where it is hard to criticise the philosophy is when the aim is to tackle climate change. An issue which demands a global response.

Imagine a group of writers using this model, instead of the Fossil Free Books approach to prevent a climate catastrophe. How would they do it?

They need to identify the end result they want to achieve. The change needs to be definable and achievable. Having done this they then need to identify how their resources, be they in the form of treasure, time or talent can be most effectively used to achieve this goal.

I would argue that their end is to prevent the planet getting any warmer. Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels over time would certainly one means to this end but an absolute end to their use is inconceivable. Developing alternative energy sources and re-examining how we sustain a growing population are just as important. Which of these means are they, individually best suited to promoting?

They also need to promote an “evidence and reason” based approach to the problem. If you really want to get governments and businesses to change direction your arguments need to be based on hard evidence. Closing down arenas for debate will achieve the opposite outcome.

Cause prioritisation is also an essential element of effective altruism. Where will the efforts achieve the greatest change? The likelihood that de-funding arts festivals and museums will reduce investment in fossil fuel industries is near zero. Where is the link? Most of the people involved in these groups are otherwise intelligent and often well connected. If they focused their efforts where they stood the best chance of achieving their goal they could easily turn their current shout against the system into an effective nuanced argument for change.

Effective philanthropists also think globally where an issue is global. Campaigning against a few cultural events in the UK isn’t going to shift the dial in Riyadh, Beijing or Texas. I doubt the decision makers there have even heard of Hay-on-Wye.

Nobody wants to see the planet get warmer and humanity extinguished but somehow these groups of otherwise generally thoughtful people have made what should be a universally supported cause into a source of scorn and derision.

There is a better way.

Who will the Church atoning for slavery really help?

“The Church Commissioners are not experts on the history or impact of transatlantic chattel slavery worldwide” - not my opinion but a quote from the Church of Englands own website. None the less they are embarking on setting up a new fund to address this historical wrong to be run by the Church Commissioners.

The fund’s impact investment and grant programme will be aimed at addressing the economic, educational and health-based inequalities that affect people of African descent, particularly focusing on disparities affecting those descended from enslaved Africans. So far there are no specific plans about how they will actually do this. They intend committing £100 million to the fund and want to encourage other donors to contribute a further £1 billion.

The background to this has had much press coverage lately so I won’t repeat it all but briefly the Church commissioned a report 5 years ago which evidenced that some of its endowment was invested in the South Sea Company, a slave trading corporation and also the some of its benefactors had also made their money trading in human cargo. What a surprise.

Slavery was and perhaps more importantly still remains an abhorrent practice. We all need to own our history around it. Also much charitable work, by all churches as well as by many other non faith based organisations strive to promote social justice  and mitigate the effects of oppression, not just from slavery. So why my concern about this new fund?

I dont want to get involved in a theological debate with the Church of England. Fools step in where Angels fear to tread. Rather I want to look at this from a charity governance and efficiency angle.

The mission of the Church is clearly defined. To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom - To teach, baptise and nurture new believers - To respond to human need by loving service - To transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence of every kind and pursue peace and reconciliation and to strive to safeguard the integrity of creation, and sustain and renew the life of the earth. I leave it to others to interpret this in detail but to me setting up a new fund to atone for historical failures looks like mission creep.

It also sets a dangerous precedent. Are we Scots to be compensated for our oppression during the Bishops Wars going on at the same time as the slave trade? Of course not and neither should we be. But what about the destruction of native cultures by proselytizing missionaries? The list is endless.

The add to their own £100 million the church aim to expand the fund to £1 billion by getting Family Foundations, Corporate Donors and wealthy individuals to add to it. The individuals and organisations they appeal to are almost certainly already engaged in this type of work so they are asking for resources which are already engaged elsewhere to be diverted to a new fund adding another layer of administrative cost ( often in the region of 10% ) and reducing the total getting to the front line.

Will the Church apply the same level of foresight to these new wealthy donors as they are now applying hindsight to their past ones? Dangerous ground here.

There are already many fantastic charities doing the types of work envisaged by the Church globally. Im not convinced by anything I’ve read from the Church’s report that setting up a new one to address the impact of something they admit they dont understand really helps.

Rather the Church should encourage people to support charities which understand the current issues better (Charities with which their new fund will inevitably end up partnering with anyway).

Of Course the Church has a role to play challenging barriers to social justice. The Anglican Communion is the third largest Christian Communion giving it a global platform and enormous influence but I really don’t think a new fund atoning for the sins of the past will really help those who most need it today.

Where charity fits and why this matters.

As the Scottish Enlightenment philosophers observed, the communities we live in are made up of are defined by three distinct yet interdependent forces: government, business and civil society. Adam Fergusson’s “An essay of the history of Civil Society” marks a watershed moment in this idea’s development.

Government makes and enforces the rules. It takes many forms. For example in Scotland we are governed by the Houses of Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, our Local Authorities and a range of other regulators and organisations deriving authority from central government.

Business is the driver for economic growth. It creates wealth within the constraints set by government.

Civil Society operates in the space between the market and the state. It covers what we, as a society, choose to do to improve the lives of our communities and it is in this space that philanthropy firmly sits.

The respective strengths of each force change over time and from nation to nation.

In authoritarian countries like North Korea the business and 3rd sector pillars are almost non-existent. The State is all. In contrast with failed states, like Haiti in 2010 after the earthquake, when both government and business were destroyed all that was left was civil society and the population became wholly dependent on their own resources and international aid.

After the American war of independence the newly formed United States quickly developed a strong civil society which continues to this day. Since the first European settlers had colonised the States they had learned that they couldn’t rely on government, the church or “their superiors” to solve their problems. They had to rely on themselves. Indeed it was the wish to escape such reliance that had driven so many of the first settlers to risk crossing the Atlantic in the first place.

The story in Britain is rather different. Following on from the Reformation in the 16th Century came the decline of the monasteries and the breakdown of the pre-reformation church and  mediaeval society structure. Many of the institutions that had been responsible for charity became defunct. Responsibility for the poor passed from the Church firstly to Civil Society and then to the State which has since evolved to become the one we know today.

As the governance of Scotland is distinct, with its own devolved administration, legal system, and historically its own Calvinistic Reformation, the Scottish business environment and its civil society inevitably reflect this.

The post-war consensus of a mixed economy with the nationalisation of major industries, the establishment of the National Health Service and the creation of the modern welfare state continues to evolve and the lines between the 3 pillars are often blurred. Increasingly Government is contracting out what were regard as its universal obligations. For example care for the elderly, the rehabilitation of offenders and the provision of social housing are just 3 examples where charities are now expected to act as government contractors.  Sometimes it works to good effect, occasionally its a disaster.

Why does this matter? It matters because the balance between the 3 pillars is constantly changing and charities need to adapt to reflect those changes if they are to remain relevant.

We all know that pressure groups can highlight the threats of the climate emergency but change will only happen through the efforts of Governments and business. The same is true in respect of nearly all major shifts. The stars need to align.

When philanthropists are looking at third sector organisations to partner with they should make sure those organisations understand the dynamic they work in and the need to work with, not against government and business.