From what I have observed, people in the progress movement are a lot more focused on expansion of the global economy. EAs typically focus on the individual actions one can take. Specifically EAs don’t emphasize the positive-sum nature as much since they are directly looking at one’s own expenditure versus giving to effective charities. Do the people in the progress movement agree with Peter Singer’s drowning child argument? I would think if one wants to expand economic growth, giving to effective charities (in scientific research, developing country donations, etc.) would be better than spending for oneself.
I don’t think there would be broad agreement within the progress community about the Singer argument, or more generally about utilitarianism.
Personally, I am neither a utilitarian nor an altruist, and I don’t agree with the drowning child argument as I understand it.
I think how much to spend on yourself vs. charity or other causes that you believe in is a personal decision, based on what is meaningful and important to you.
I am curious what you think about it. Do you have any refutation of the argument? Is the opinion one your willing to share?