Effective altruism is this century's biggest idea

Commenters debated effective altruism as an idea of directing resources to where they do the most good. Several defended the basic logic: Joker_vD described it as “getting the biggest bang for your buck,” and kragen pointed to continued lives saved as evidence that it works despite bad actors. d_silin and pfortuny suggested more nuanced tools like partially ordered set theory to handle incommensurable or non-linear trade-offs, and others (d_silin again) proposed applying EA-style thinking to long-term social policy and cultural patterns rather than naïve linear metrics.

Others rejected or cautioned against EA on moral and practical grounds. gizajob and amanaplanacanal compared it to Objectivism or consequentialist rationalizations that can justify harmful means, invoking SBF and “scammers and criminals” as having tainted the movement (jacquesm, N_Lens). beepbooptheory and gizajob criticized its lack of academic rigor and alleged replication of ivory-tower dynamics at scale, while Joker_vD and others pointed to the hypocrisy of wealth built on harm then partially undone by philanthropy. Opinion split between those who see a pragmatic tool that saves lives and those who see an oversimplifying, easily corrupted framework that fails to reckon with complexity and ethics.