My rollercoaster ride with Effective Altruism
The ascent
I came across Effective Altruism (EA) quite randomly: like many people, I had heard the infamous tale of Sam Bankman-Fried, but did not look further into it until I ran into a LinkedIn post advertising an EA summit. Being a scientist and an animal advocate, the promise certainly seemed appealing! A full day of similar-minded people dedicated to doing good, what’s not to like?
The idea seemed all the more interesting as I had recently moved abroad, tried to pursue the same type of activism as I did back home, even getting more involved by becoming an organizer… But alas! After many months of efforts I surrendered to a cultural wall that appeared impenetrable to me, and I acknowledged it was just not a good fit. (This would warrant its own post, but yes, I did try my best to integrate.)
I therefore saw EA as a new beginning for me and finally, as another way to make a true impact for the animals, even remotely. The conference was remarkably well-organized, I learned a lot from smart people holding the mic and presenting their research and motivations all day long. I left the event feeling energized and very enthusiastic, convinced I had found my next steps: I would either earn-to-give, or join the community one way or another.
The tunnel (vision)
But over the months, and through discussions with people in this space, I got less and less confident that this approach was as bulletproof as I initially thought: sure, the arguments were rational, data-based, and simply made sense. But I couldn’t shake the feeling that in this world of massive numbers and calculations, the individuals were disappearing.
I also experienced times where when I raised questions relating to individuals, welfarism and abolitionism, I was simply told that I had not read enough EA literature: as we will see later, this question of “doing your homework” would be something I would encounter again. Not acknowledging the own limitations of the movement, contrary to any kind of scientific reasoning, was a concern that would be harder to ignore over time. Saying to be ready to be wrong and correct the course is not the same as actually doing it (and for good reasons: it is infinitely more uncomfortable).
But still, I kept thinking that my background would be particularly well-suited for this type of work, the people I interacted with were very sharp and friendly, plus I got nothing but good vibes from them at the time of the conference. The next step was to see if I could actually join an EA-based organization: a spot opened in one of them, and I was invited by a member to apply.
Full disclosure, I want to preface what follows by stating that my application was rejected on the second round: I have absolutely no ill-will regarding this group, I am glad they are doing the work they do but came to acknowledge it would not have worked out anyway for the reasons below, which can be some food for thought.
Back to the initial application process. In some information that was provided about the organization, I really appreciated the transparency and openness that was demonstrated but also had a hard time with the repeated saying, “we are doing everything that is effective”: after all, how can you be so sure of your effectiveness? This sentence was further contradicted by the interview process, which itself showed, right at first sight, areas for improvement - and led me to wonder whether a tunnel vision built up over time, despite the best efforts, skills and dedication of the team…
The topic of whether recruitment in EA organizations is indeed that efficient has been covered in several excellent posts, which I highly recommend reading:
Is EA still talent-constrained?
80,000 Hours says we need more people — so why do top candidates still struggle to land roles?
The descent: from earn-to-give to learn-to-please?
Another concern I had before applying, when pondering how it would go if I passed all the steps, was the risk of group-thinking: the overemphasis put on culture was indeed next-level. The interview process stretches over several months, with a long probation period afterwards, itself followed by another fit check. It would seem rather perilous to step out of the established line, and such a situation could favor the sacrifice of authenticity to fit the mold and to avoid being dismissed based on any cultural unfitness.
Get Jolly Goose Fellow’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Here’s a related analogy I thought about, from my machine learning days: when presented with data points from which you want to build a model, there are some drawbacks you want to avoid.
- Underfitting, where your model is simply not good enough and does not even reach any of your data points, or very few, and cannot predict anything reliably. Recruitment-wise, that can translate to going with candidates that are too far from the values and behaviors the organization strives to live with, which is logically not desirable.
- But on the other hand of the spectrum is overfitting, where your model matches your existing points so perfectly that a slightly different point will not fit. We all know that the animal advocacy space evolves, politics changes, even global world events can modify the course of action unpredictably: adaptability and out-of-the-box thinking seems to me a crucial trait for this type of work, and I am convinced that flexibility in recruitment can be a key part.
The echo chamber and the haunted mansion
Something constant throughout my EA experience was also the invitation to read the exact same books. The books that were presented at the EA conference were the same books I was told to read when debating a principle, and the same books that were, ideally, to be read to prepare for the application process to the organization.
I am all for getting familiar with the scientific principles and ideas of EA, and it makes sense that they were recommended. But considering all these similarities, I started wondering if this was not a fast-track into an echo-chamber.
This appears more dangerous now than ever: I started feeling uneasy with the sliding of the Overton window, getting us further away from actual liberation, and more and more comfortable to stop at welfare. If the “mathematical good” was heavily emphasized from the EA members I interacted with, barely anyone spoke of the huge potential costs: making progress in welfare, at the cost of delaying animal liberation more and more, making customers more comfortable about using animal products. The question I started asking myself was, if I earn to give or work at an EA organization, what do my money and efforts really achieve?
Other excellent posts were recently published on the topic, including by prominent and historical EA figures:
EA should invest in Animal Liberation and Diet Change Advocacy
One argument for EA has been, roughly, “we tried to make animal liberation happen in the past and it didn’t happen, so let’s be efficient and reduce suffering”. It is a statement that makes sense, and reducing suffering is of course desirable: but there is a lot that can be said about how one setback or failure does not mean that an entire approach is to throw out, considering the multiple factors at play (societal changes, raised awareness, climate change…). In addition, strictly going back to efficiency, welfare approaches can also experience setbacks and/or raise public concerns about climate-related issues.
Household purchases of eggs for home consumption by French households rose by 8% between June 2025 and June 2026, according to Wordpanel data reported by FranceAgriMer. The sharpest increase was seen in Code 3 eggs, or eggs from caged hens: +29.4%. This trend had already begun in May (+7.9%) and April (+14.3%), following several months of decline. [Translated from this 2026 article.]
Other things within the EA movement gave me pause: one example that stuck with me is seeing well-known people in the EA and animal advocacy space, liking and praising the honesty of another animal advocate that was openly stating going back to eating dairy, and also openly indicating that the reason was convenience when travelling, among some other reducetarian arguments.
I am not, and will never be comfortable with this kind of praise: I was frankly flabbergasted that the people praising them could not see the damage this is doing, and how far back it leads us.
This is a topic where it is possible to respectfully speak up, or at the very least, not endorse publicly such statements: we are not talking here of someone’s survival, for example dependency on medicine, or any impossibility to do otherwise, or being a work in progress. Instead, this is about going back to using and exploiting animals for convenience and proudly saying it… from an animal advocate… being praised by recognized EA animal advocates.
As much as I understand the fear of seeing animal advocacy becoming a purity contest and the risks of gatekeeping activism, the pendulum is swinging way, way too far in the opposite direction.
And now? ∀
If I did not think EA was a valuable movement, I would not have taken the time to write all this. It is also quite uncomfortable to speak up on these issues when I know (sometimes personally) the good intentions, sharpness and motivation of the people in these organizations, and some real positive results that have been achieved.
Nonetheless, this goose will honk at what can be improved and bring attention to it. It is annoying and you may disagree, perhaps with excellent reasons to do so, but I believe there are not enough public dissenting opinions on these topics.
On my end, I still follow what happens in the EA space but with more distance and cautious optimism: in the meantime, the actions I have taken since follow a simple principle that the mathematical symbol ∀ (meaning “for all”) embodies quite nicely. For all the animals, and for all the actions you can take, every opportunity (EO? ;)) can be seized to move the cursor, and it doesn’t have to be in opposition to EA.
These opportunities could be to bring awareness on the impact of animal products on climate change, perform in a sport as a vegan, join advocate groups near you, inform yourself about the stance of your political candidates on animal-related matters and vote accordingly, support policies, propose to take charge of catering for an event…
I believe EA for animals should keep moving and has accomplished a lot of good, but let’s never forget its roots towards the end goal that is animal liberation.
