I find it useful to distinguish three elements within EA thinking:

(1) Individual Altruism

The EA movement started from the idea that individuals should systematically donate to effective charities as these charities can be shown to produce benefits 100x the donor’s cost.  The charity evaluator GiveWell makes recommendations such as Against Malaria Foundation, whose bednet programme is shown by random control trials to save a life for around $4,500.   Giving What We Can encourages donors to pledge to give away 10% or more of their income, perhaps from a career strategy of Earning to Give. As well as making donations, the individual may choose his career to do the most good. 

(2) Effective Philanthropy 

Despite its thrifty beginnings, the EA movement has come to be supported by Open Philanthropy and other major donors and now has more than $40 billion of funding.  This gives the challenge of how over time to effectively deploy substantial funds to do the most good.  Many projects are now being funded, with a hits-based giving approach including some which have high potential but more risk.  The current main focus areas are global health and poverty, animal welfare and the future of humanity.

(3) Global Priorities

Beside the question of how best to do philanthropy, the EA movement also considers generally what humanity’s priorities should be.  Working out what matters overall is necessary for directing philanthropy, but the bigger effects from EA’s work may come from highlighting global priorities which leads to political change.   EAs have a unique new perspective on global issues with their universalistic and rationalist approach, while national politics gives little thought to issues such as global poverty, animal welfare and the long term.  It may be that EAs ‘think tank’ role, through organisations such as The Global Priorities Institute and books such as The Precipice, will be EA’s main contribution.