hacking the norm of reciprocity for the evolutionary benefit of future generations

In terms of your critique of EA, I think you've completely bought into the idea of "revealed preferences" - that people's utility is revealed in what they want. However, a large portion of psychology research shows something very different - that the behavior people have that gets reinforced is a completey separate "compulsion" pathway than what they enjoy/find happiness from/get fulfilled from, etc.

Economics doesn't really care about that shit if it doesn't effect people's actions, so it's easier to talk about "revealed preferences." But as a utilitarian, you should be aware of all the separate pathways that the brain evolved to survive and replicate - many of them separate from happiness, fulfillment, pleasure, and other things which we like to talk about when we talk about "utility'.

The upshot of how all this relates to your points is that the free market/racking up money often hits a bunch of these compulsion pathways through the accumulation of money, but often IGNORES other areas of utility. Givewell is trying to fix the imbalance.

You know what, you're lesswrong. I didn't realise before reading your comment. You've completely reframed some of my thinking. Thank you.

I'm going to rebrand myself as an Effective Mutualist!

Then I'm going to get serious and start reading up on how we might otherwise infer what will help others feel happiness other than via their revealed preferences. I still feel compelled to help others, beyond that which will materially benefit me or society in the long term (my thinking is that, if everyone where more mutualistic, then over the long term the more parasitic people would die off).

edit 1: The left wing tries to abolish poverty, the right tries to abolish bureaucracy. Perhaps there's some innate psychological divide between people who try to get rid of social problems immediately, and those who want to do it sustainably.