Philosopher Attacks 'Save the Shrimp' Charity Movement

A public spat has broken out over effective altruism (EA), a movement that tries to use evidence and math to figure out the best ways to help others. Stanford philosopher Leif Wenar wrote an article in The Economist calling EA's biggest idea 'saving the shrimp' and suggesting it's a waste of time. The author of this response, also a philosopher, says Wenar's piece is embarrassing and full of sneers rather than solid arguments.

The shrimp example is central. EAs argue that because shrimp are numerous and may feel pain, even a small donation can prevent a huge amount of suffering. For $15, you could improve the lives of about 22,500 shrimp. Wenar mocks this, but the author points out that scientists increasingly agree that crustaceans like shrimp, lobsters, and crabs can feel pain. The UK has even passed laws to protect them. So caring about shrimp isn't crazy—it's about helping neglected beings.

Wenar also criticizes EA message boards for being full of jargon and lacking common sense. The author counters that many of the world's biggest problems—like AI risks and pandemics—require exactly the kind of mathematical thinking EAs do. He accuses Wenar of ignoring evidence and relying on ridicule instead of reason.

The debate matters because some effective altruists have influence over artificial intelligence development, which affects everyone. The author worries that dismissing EA entirely could lead to bad decisions about technology that impact our future. While not everyone must agree on shrimp, the conversation should be based on facts, not mockery.