Carrumbaism - What about others?

Recommended listening: Smoke Fairies - "Vague Ideas" (Spotify)

It's not until you start reading philosophy and paying attention to what others are postulating on the future of humanity that you realise the world is gorgeously awash with philosophical movements. How does Carrumbaism, with zero funding or celebrity backers, compare to the current darlings of the rich and self-obsessed? Let's have an unreasonable debate...

I was going to move onto another of the tenets of Carrumbaism today however, a news article caught my eye and sent me down the rabbit-hole of reading about Longtermism and, particularly, Effective Altruism as described by William MacAskill, a Scottish Philosopher. Longtermism caught my attention for the first time after reading this article about the closure of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University. The institute, co-founded by philosopher Nick Bostrom and partly funded by Elon Musk, focused on existential threats posed by areas like artificial intelligence. The closure follows controversy around Bostrom's past racist remarks and scrutiny of the effective altruism movement's connection to a billionaire donor who has since faced public disgrace - namely Sam Bankman-Fried. While some of the propositions of Effective Altruism I share in establishing Carrumbaism, it could be argued that its adoption by narcissist billionaires and the influx of their money twists the structure of the philosophy to the point that the stress starts to crack its very foundations.

"I would argue that MacAskill doomed his philosophical approach to the moral equivalent of a Ponzi scheme - promising effective work for the greater-good while causing harm through its very own business model."

I made that statement before reading further on the relationship between MacAskill and Bankman-Fried. Unsurprisingly, the leaders, and particularly William MacAskill, were badly burned by the association and had a much deeper and toxic relationship than the original 'Time' article from 2022 reveals. A 'Time' article from 2023 goes into some depth about the relationship between the two and warnings about Bankman-Fried's behaviour and money, going back as far as 2018. It does make you wonder about the quality of the reporting in 'Time' that there was no attempt to seek out opposing points of view, that obviously existed in 2022, and instead amplified the philosophy so beloved of the likes of Elongated Muskrat. I think it would be fair to examine whether Effective Altruism benefited from money gifted in a philanthropic way that Bankman-Fried had no right to donate. That right there is poison delivered straight to the roots of the Effective Altruism movement.

Although accepting dodgy money to fund their movement could be argued as acceptable in terms of its goal of "aiming to use evidence and reason to find the best ways of helping others, and to put those findings into practice" and the morals of Longtermism as "a set of ethical views concerned with protecting and improving the long-run future." this is an example of what all philosophies need to guard against - outsized individual, ultra-specific concerns warping the stated aims of a school of thought. By focusing on encouraging wealthy tech bros to donate at least 10% of their income to Effective Altruism projects, I would argue that MacAskill doomed his philosophical approach to the moral equivalent of a Ponzi scheme - promising effective work for the greater-good while causing harm through its very own business model. Perhaps a fairer comparison would be with companies that carbon-offset by planting trees that they conveniently ignore are harvested for paper and fuel, releasing any carbon they captured back into the ecosystem. Keep on using our product, and we'll plant MILLIONS of trees (they just happen to be replacing the ones we chopped down and burned and, er, released the captured carbon from...oh look over there! A protest to join!) When ideology meets wealth, objectives and morals can be quickly twisted in an entirely unexpected direction.

How Carrumbaism avoids the billionaire trap

Apart from being so small, they've never heard of it, you mean? Ha ha ha. Seriously, it was a question I was pondering earlier, and I think the key difference between Effective Altruism and Carrumbaism is that, unlike EA (E..A... thoughts, it's cash for gain. Sorry. Couldn't hold back on the association any longer. Gamers will get it), Carrumbaism is dedicated to establishing an effective framework for people in the communication age to come together and improve their lives here and now, with an emphasis on making the world a better place. This would necessitate actions placing the world in the best possible position for future generations. Cross generational cooperation would be encouraged to ensure continuity and adaptation of the philosophy to meet future needs as they are identified, and not be fixated on what was most pressing in 2024. The best way for a billionaire to help the cause of Carrumbaism would be to get involved, share their skills for free, and promote this philosophical approach without expecting specific benefits. Performative donations of kidneys or scouring the world for places to swoop in and 'solve' issues is not required. Jetting off to Mars to establish humanity in the stars is all well and good, just don't cover your ears to the plight of the generation toiling on Earth and lining your pockets in the process. Seem fair? I think so.

That's not to say I'd be averse to billionaires using some of the change down the back of their bitcoin wallets to advertise the movement off their own backs, as well as engaging in the formation of the philosophy, but actual monetary donations would be problematic. Identifiable needs of the philosophy would be a way to ensure donations are used for specific reasons and help reduce conflict of interest a la Father Ted.

When feeding the principles of Carrumbaism into Google Gemini, and asking how the philosophy would avoid distortion from Billionaire donations, it provided the following response. The creation of a transparent process of evaluating donations along with community discussion could help to mitigate against any undesirable effects on the core principles, however it would be foolish to ignore the temptation created by a sizeable wad of cash. To that end, I would propose that the following framework be the starting point for assessing any theoretical donations, whatever their size:

As with any good high-level flow chart, there are areas that need to be broken down in smaller steps and discussion - how are the needs of the community decided? What constitutes an identifiable need? All points it would be great to discuss.

Carrumbaism is a philosophy for everyone in the communication age, rich, poor or in-between. The emphasis on helping everyone, regardless of where they are on that scale, should be used as a way to ensure nobody has an outsized influence on development of the philosophy due to the resources at their disposal. All input should 'float all boats' and shouldn't consign anyone to being tethered to a metaphorical stone anchor while others ride the wave, hopefully weeding out the narcissist and performative donors. Due diligence through community interaction for all, regardless of their status, is key. I mean, who wouldn't want to know how to design a cutting-edge Cybertruck...right? RIGHT?

#carrumbaism #philosophy #forthegreatergood