What do you think?
Rate this book
Death in a Shallow Pond: A Philosopher, a Drowning Child, and Strangers in Need
This audiobook narrated by Zeb Soanes offers a fascinating account of how Peter Singer's controversial "drowning child" thought experiment changed the way people think about charitable giving
Imagine You're walking past a shallow pond and spot a toddler thrashing around in the water, in obvious danger of drowning. You look around for her parents, but nobody is there. You're the only person who can save her and you must act immediately. But as you approach the pond you remember that you're wearing your most expensive shoes. Wading into the water will ruin them—and might make you late for a meeting. Should you let the child drown? The philosopher Peter Singer published this thought experiment in 1972, arguing that allowing people in the developing world to die, when we could easily help them by giving money to charity, is as morally reprehensible as saving our shoes instead of the drowning child. Can this possibly be true? In Death in a Shallow Pond, David Edmonds tells the remarkable story of Singer and his controversial idea, tracing how it radically changed the way many think about poverty—but also how it has provoked scathing criticisms.
Death in a Shallow Pond describes the experiences and world events that led Singer to make his radical case and how it moved some young philosophers to establish the Effective Altruism movement, which tries to optimize philanthropy. The book also explores the reactions of critics who argue that the Shallow Pond and Effective Altruism are unrealistic, misguided, and counterproductive, neglecting the causes of—and therefore perpetuating—poverty. Ultimately, however, Edmonds argues that the Shallow Pond retains the power to shape how we live in a world in which terrible and unnecessary suffering persists.
Imagine You're walking past a shallow pond and spot a toddler thrashing around in the water, in obvious danger of drowning. You look around for her parents, but nobody is there. You're the only person who can save her and you must act immediately. But as you approach the pond you remember that you're wearing your most expensive shoes. Wading into the water will ruin them—and might make you late for a meeting. Should you let the child drown? The philosopher Peter Singer published this thought experiment in 1972, arguing that allowing people in the developing world to die, when we could easily help them by giving money to charity, is as morally reprehensible as saving our shoes instead of the drowning child. Can this possibly be true? In Death in a Shallow Pond, David Edmonds tells the remarkable story of Singer and his controversial idea, tracing how it radically changed the way many think about poverty—but also how it has provoked scathing criticisms.
Death in a Shallow Pond describes the experiences and world events that led Singer to make his radical case and how it moved some young philosophers to establish the Effective Altruism movement, which tries to optimize philanthropy. The book also explores the reactions of critics who argue that the Shallow Pond and Effective Altruism are unrealistic, misguided, and counterproductive, neglecting the causes of—and therefore perpetuating—poverty. Ultimately, however, Edmonds argues that the Shallow Pond retains the power to shape how we live in a world in which terrible and unnecessary suffering persists.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
Audible Audio
Published September 23, 2025
22 people are currently reading
467 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
October 14, 2025
I was annoyed by some parts of this book, but I'm glad I read it, and I may end up recommending it to many people down the line.
Chiefly, that's because it contains the best history of EA I've seen in a book, or maybe in any written format. I’m grateful for that. There were many stories I hadn’t heard, and despite my issues with the book, I trust Edmonds as a reporter (I was one of his sources, and found him to be a thorough fact-checker who asked good follow-up questions).
I also enjoyed the biography of Singer, and found the philosophical explanations clear (though I skimmed through some sections that were very familiar to me).
I’m disappointed that something like half the book is given over to objections to the Shallow Pond argument, most of them… shallow. Many chapters take the form “what if giving actually has bad consequence X?” while citing only one (or zero) points of evidence in favor of that somewhat counterintuitive idea, and giving little to no space for counterargument.
Much less time is given to ample evidence that donations and aid campaigns are often very effective. The word “PEPFAR” never comes up, and Edmonds handles both smallpox eradication and the war against polio in a single sentence that contains no numbers. But if we’re going to spend several pages considering that power disparities make giving problematic, how many pages should talk about the millions of parents raising children who would have died if it weren’t for the existence of well-targeted aid and charitable giving? Did Edmonds interview a single aid recipient in the developing world to see how they felt about it? (If he did, I don’t remember it coming up in the book — though it would have been tricky to pull off in any case.)
It would be entirely fair to write a book just about objections to the Shallow Pond argument, or to the EA project — as some people have. But given the book's aim to evaluate the topic comprehensively, I thought it wound up with a skewed analysis. (Though I am very biased.)
If you want to see a better response to this book than anything I’m going to write, look up the “Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics”.
Chiefly, that's because it contains the best history of EA I've seen in a book, or maybe in any written format. I’m grateful for that. There were many stories I hadn’t heard, and despite my issues with the book, I trust Edmonds as a reporter (I was one of his sources, and found him to be a thorough fact-checker who asked good follow-up questions).
I also enjoyed the biography of Singer, and found the philosophical explanations clear (though I skimmed through some sections that were very familiar to me).
I’m disappointed that something like half the book is given over to objections to the Shallow Pond argument, most of them… shallow. Many chapters take the form “what if giving actually has bad consequence X?” while citing only one (or zero) points of evidence in favor of that somewhat counterintuitive idea, and giving little to no space for counterargument.
Much less time is given to ample evidence that donations and aid campaigns are often very effective. The word “PEPFAR” never comes up, and Edmonds handles both smallpox eradication and the war against polio in a single sentence that contains no numbers. But if we’re going to spend several pages considering that power disparities make giving problematic, how many pages should talk about the millions of parents raising children who would have died if it weren’t for the existence of well-targeted aid and charitable giving? Did Edmonds interview a single aid recipient in the developing world to see how they felt about it? (If he did, I don’t remember it coming up in the book — though it would have been tricky to pull off in any case.)
It would be entirely fair to write a book just about objections to the Shallow Pond argument, or to the EA project — as some people have. But given the book's aim to evaluate the topic comprehensively, I thought it wound up with a skewed analysis. (Though I am very biased.)
If you want to see a better response to this book than anything I’m going to write, look up the “Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics”.
January 10, 2026
If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. - Peter Singer
Peter Singer has had two huge impacts on my life, so far. Animal Liberation led to 19 years of vegetarianism starting in the mid-80's and The Life You Can Save: How to Do Your Part to End World Poverty (and specifically the shallow pond thought experiment) informed my view of Effective Altruism (EA) and directly changed my approach to charity. This short book includes a high-level biography of Singer, followed by a review of the criticisms of his most famous thought experiment. Along the way, you also learn more about EA and the connections between Singer and EA.
Peter Singer has had two huge impacts on my life, so far. Animal Liberation led to 19 years of vegetarianism starting in the mid-80's and The Life You Can Save: How to Do Your Part to End World Poverty (and specifically the shallow pond thought experiment) informed my view of Effective Altruism (EA) and directly changed my approach to charity. This short book includes a high-level biography of Singer, followed by a review of the criticisms of his most famous thought experiment. Along the way, you also learn more about EA and the connections between Singer and EA.
October 29, 2025
Really enjoyed the book. As someone who works in the effective altruism space I feel like the book gives a fair treatment of the history and arguments for and against the effective altruist approach to making the world a better place : )
November 18, 2025
This was an intense and thorny read. I started this section of the book (focusing on Effective Altruism and Peter Singer's ethical arguments) with curiosity, but I finished it with deeply mixed feelings and a profound skepticism I hadn't anticipated.
What I Appreciated (The Positive Side):
Challenging Personal Values: The book undeniably succeeded in forcing me to think deeply about my own values and the way I approach wealth and moral duty.
The Inspirational Power of the Arguments: Singer's "Shallow Pond" argument is irrefutable, clearly demonstrating that we have the power to prevent bad things from happening, and that is truly inspiring.
Intellectual Clarity: The way the text tackles complex ethical problems—such as the distinction between emotion and rationality in giving—was extremely helpful for understanding the mechanics of our decision-making.
What Led to My Doubts (The Negative Side):
Skepticism Towards Charities: After reading about "The Art of the Feel" and how organizations rely on psychological biases and images of "identifiable victims" (like the story of Aylan Kurdi) instead of systematic effectiveness, I grew more dubious about the true motivations of charitable organizations.
Fear of Exploitation: The discussion about how organizations can be "cutthroat and competitive" and how some aspects of Effective Altruism are labeled as "alien" or "cult-like" due to its language and positions, raised significant concerns about transparency and accountability.
Shocking Ethical Debate: I cannot overlook the controversy surrounding Peter Singer's views on the moral status of animal life compared to that of a newborn human or his controversial opinions regarding bestiality. These parts were shocking and left me with a sense that strict rationalist thinking (utilitarianism) can lead to profoundly anti-human conclusions.
Conclusion: This book is not a comfortable read; it is a severe intellectual exercise. If you are looking for a book to completely disrupt the way you think about charity and ethics, this will certainly achieve that. However, it will also leave you with bigger questions about the world we live in, and, specifically, about the philanthropy sector itself.
What I Appreciated (The Positive Side):
Challenging Personal Values: The book undeniably succeeded in forcing me to think deeply about my own values and the way I approach wealth and moral duty.
The Inspirational Power of the Arguments: Singer's "Shallow Pond" argument is irrefutable, clearly demonstrating that we have the power to prevent bad things from happening, and that is truly inspiring.
Intellectual Clarity: The way the text tackles complex ethical problems—such as the distinction between emotion and rationality in giving—was extremely helpful for understanding the mechanics of our decision-making.
What Led to My Doubts (The Negative Side):
Skepticism Towards Charities: After reading about "The Art of the Feel" and how organizations rely on psychological biases and images of "identifiable victims" (like the story of Aylan Kurdi) instead of systematic effectiveness, I grew more dubious about the true motivations of charitable organizations.
Fear of Exploitation: The discussion about how organizations can be "cutthroat and competitive" and how some aspects of Effective Altruism are labeled as "alien" or "cult-like" due to its language and positions, raised significant concerns about transparency and accountability.
Shocking Ethical Debate: I cannot overlook the controversy surrounding Peter Singer's views on the moral status of animal life compared to that of a newborn human or his controversial opinions regarding bestiality. These parts were shocking and left me with a sense that strict rationalist thinking (utilitarianism) can lead to profoundly anti-human conclusions.
Conclusion: This book is not a comfortable read; it is a severe intellectual exercise. If you are looking for a book to completely disrupt the way you think about charity and ethics, this will certainly achieve that. However, it will also leave you with bigger questions about the world we live in, and, specifically, about the philanthropy sector itself.
February 3, 2026
I'm not a fan of philosophy, having struggled with a couple of courses in college and abandoned books midway through in subsequent years. The arguments are obtuse, confusing, full of words with definitions that are limited by the writer to some particular set of circumstances. It's so abstract that it's nonsense.
This book is different. The author lays out what Effective Altruism is and the antecedents that led to its development, as well as its primary limitations and main criticisms. The discussions are so clear and concise that they make sense instantly. Only in a couple of cases did I have to go back and reread a few paragraphs or refer to an earlier part of the book. Very rare to find that type of clarity on a subject I knew nothing about.
Well, I guess not "nothing." I'd heard of Effective Altruism because of criminal and arrogant badboy Sam Bankman Fried, who's now trying to buy his way out of a long prison sentence by bribing President Trump. I'm sure he will succeed because bribes always work with Trump. But Bankman Fried's conviction for fraud related to a trading platform for crypto currency led me to read a little about the philosophy he expoused: Effective Altruism. The short version of Effective Altruism is that you should away as much money as you can -- not just "should" but have moral obligation to do so -- and that you also are obligated to direct it where it can have the most good. You need to do your research and support the right causes and groups. And you are allowed to get rich, as long as you use that money for good. Don't worry about working on Wall Street for $1 million a year. That's totally cool, as long as you donate most of it. In fact, you're doing more good that way than if you are a middle-income school teacher in the inner city. You can use your money to hire 10 or 20 teachers in Africa and educate a whole village of girls, who can then exercise more control over their own lives. That's the basic idea.
Of course, Bankman-Fried didn't really live up to his professed morals, but used it as a marketing tool to enable him to dress like a slob, act like an a-hole, and trick tens of thousands of people into giving him their crypto assets. (As an aside, crypto is a Ponzi scheme and a fraud, so I don't particularly care if wealthy investors lose their assets. I do feel a little sorry for the guy with $10,000 who blows it on crypto.)
Effective Altruism is based on a couple of ideas. First came from Peter Singer, a type of philosopher concerned with actions, not just ideas. He posited that if you see a child drowning in a shallow pond, you are obligated to save that child if the damage to you is minor, such as ruining your clothes. Not controversial. Then he extended that idea to if that child was dying in another country and you could save him or her with an amount of money equivalent to the ruined clothing, you are morally obligated to do that, too. And then he extended it further so that if you can save a life or lives without damaging your lifestyle (my phrase), then you must do that as well. And by that standard, pretty much nobody in the Western world is living up to their obligation either to the developing world, nor to the poor and weak closer to them.
Singer's idea caught on quickly in the early 1970s, and Singer's restless mind took another step. He and his wife committed to donating half or more of their income forever, and he urged others to do the same or close to the same. But then he ran into a problem of figuring out where to donate. Which causes could be helped most efficiently -- that is, saving the greatest number of lives or vastly improving the greatest number of lives at the lowest cost per-person. Was it better to seek a cure for cancer or to distribute malaria pills? Was curing a blinding disease more beneficial than neonatal care? That's where two other men came in, William MacAskill and Peter Ord. They helped Singer to create criteria to rate both causes and charities, thus giving donors a sense of what worked and didn't work. So Singer's idea added momentum to giving, and the second idea revolutionized the sophistication of how it was given.
This revolution was underpinned by a series of philosophical, logical, moral ideas. This book runs through them, as well as the interesting decisions of those key players. The author also discusses the criticisms of these ideas, such as how to compare different types of benefits -- such as saving a life vs. improving a life vs. adding 5 years to a life -- and more controversial ideas such as whether charitable donations to a developing country are ultimately just siphoned off by the powerful and leave the intended beneficiaries poor. Or even if the beneficiaries are helped a little, is that just keeping them just contented enough that they don't demand the societal (legal, cultural, economic, political) change really needed to drastically improve their lives? And the author notes that many critics have said that the Effective Altruists are pretty much always rich, White, educated males from North America and Europe. What do they really know about what's needed in a poor country, and aren't they just retaining the status quo for themselves without toppling the colonial, racist structures that gave their nations wealth in the first place? Where's the line between reparations, which imply an obligation to fix a problem, and charity, which is voluntary?
These are just some of the fascinating points that are raised in the book. Each is discussed briefly, only a few pages, but with big points made. I have no idea how many detailed, subtle other points are raised, and frankly, that's when philosophy gets soporific for me. I'm glad the author doesn't go too far into the weeds, though perhaps he's skipping highly salient points in the interest of reaching a general audience. Singer, MacAskill and others have written enough other best-sellers that one can delve much more deeply, if one wants to.
As an aside, though not a trivial issue, Singer also sounded the call for animal rights and is considered a founder of that movement. Since animals have most of the abilities of humans, such as feeling pain and loss and kinship, he said that killing them for food is morally wrong, and factory farming techniques are basically torture. Hard to argue against his points, and he's quoted as saying that the issue is so self-evident that he's shocked that 50 years after he brought them up that vegetarianism hasn't overtaken the world.
I'm going to read a couple more books on this subject. I'd avoided them because I think the Effective Altruists are sort of sickening in their holier-than-thou, smarter-than-thou, bigger-picture-than-thou ways. They are smug and gross, and they use their philosophy to justify working on Wall Street and other scummy places, and they think they are more important than everyone else. Singer doesn't seem that way, however, and it will be interesting to back to the source (his writings) and see what else he has to say.
This book is different. The author lays out what Effective Altruism is and the antecedents that led to its development, as well as its primary limitations and main criticisms. The discussions are so clear and concise that they make sense instantly. Only in a couple of cases did I have to go back and reread a few paragraphs or refer to an earlier part of the book. Very rare to find that type of clarity on a subject I knew nothing about.
Well, I guess not "nothing." I'd heard of Effective Altruism because of criminal and arrogant badboy Sam Bankman Fried, who's now trying to buy his way out of a long prison sentence by bribing President Trump. I'm sure he will succeed because bribes always work with Trump. But Bankman Fried's conviction for fraud related to a trading platform for crypto currency led me to read a little about the philosophy he expoused: Effective Altruism. The short version of Effective Altruism is that you should away as much money as you can -- not just "should" but have moral obligation to do so -- and that you also are obligated to direct it where it can have the most good. You need to do your research and support the right causes and groups. And you are allowed to get rich, as long as you use that money for good. Don't worry about working on Wall Street for $1 million a year. That's totally cool, as long as you donate most of it. In fact, you're doing more good that way than if you are a middle-income school teacher in the inner city. You can use your money to hire 10 or 20 teachers in Africa and educate a whole village of girls, who can then exercise more control over their own lives. That's the basic idea.
Of course, Bankman-Fried didn't really live up to his professed morals, but used it as a marketing tool to enable him to dress like a slob, act like an a-hole, and trick tens of thousands of people into giving him their crypto assets. (As an aside, crypto is a Ponzi scheme and a fraud, so I don't particularly care if wealthy investors lose their assets. I do feel a little sorry for the guy with $10,000 who blows it on crypto.)
Effective Altruism is based on a couple of ideas. First came from Peter Singer, a type of philosopher concerned with actions, not just ideas. He posited that if you see a child drowning in a shallow pond, you are obligated to save that child if the damage to you is minor, such as ruining your clothes. Not controversial. Then he extended that idea to if that child was dying in another country and you could save him or her with an amount of money equivalent to the ruined clothing, you are morally obligated to do that, too. And then he extended it further so that if you can save a life or lives without damaging your lifestyle (my phrase), then you must do that as well. And by that standard, pretty much nobody in the Western world is living up to their obligation either to the developing world, nor to the poor and weak closer to them.
Singer's idea caught on quickly in the early 1970s, and Singer's restless mind took another step. He and his wife committed to donating half or more of their income forever, and he urged others to do the same or close to the same. But then he ran into a problem of figuring out where to donate. Which causes could be helped most efficiently -- that is, saving the greatest number of lives or vastly improving the greatest number of lives at the lowest cost per-person. Was it better to seek a cure for cancer or to distribute malaria pills? Was curing a blinding disease more beneficial than neonatal care? That's where two other men came in, William MacAskill and Peter Ord. They helped Singer to create criteria to rate both causes and charities, thus giving donors a sense of what worked and didn't work. So Singer's idea added momentum to giving, and the second idea revolutionized the sophistication of how it was given.
This revolution was underpinned by a series of philosophical, logical, moral ideas. This book runs through them, as well as the interesting decisions of those key players. The author also discusses the criticisms of these ideas, such as how to compare different types of benefits -- such as saving a life vs. improving a life vs. adding 5 years to a life -- and more controversial ideas such as whether charitable donations to a developing country are ultimately just siphoned off by the powerful and leave the intended beneficiaries poor. Or even if the beneficiaries are helped a little, is that just keeping them just contented enough that they don't demand the societal (legal, cultural, economic, political) change really needed to drastically improve their lives? And the author notes that many critics have said that the Effective Altruists are pretty much always rich, White, educated males from North America and Europe. What do they really know about what's needed in a poor country, and aren't they just retaining the status quo for themselves without toppling the colonial, racist structures that gave their nations wealth in the first place? Where's the line between reparations, which imply an obligation to fix a problem, and charity, which is voluntary?
These are just some of the fascinating points that are raised in the book. Each is discussed briefly, only a few pages, but with big points made. I have no idea how many detailed, subtle other points are raised, and frankly, that's when philosophy gets soporific for me. I'm glad the author doesn't go too far into the weeds, though perhaps he's skipping highly salient points in the interest of reaching a general audience. Singer, MacAskill and others have written enough other best-sellers that one can delve much more deeply, if one wants to.
As an aside, though not a trivial issue, Singer also sounded the call for animal rights and is considered a founder of that movement. Since animals have most of the abilities of humans, such as feeling pain and loss and kinship, he said that killing them for food is morally wrong, and factory farming techniques are basically torture. Hard to argue against his points, and he's quoted as saying that the issue is so self-evident that he's shocked that 50 years after he brought them up that vegetarianism hasn't overtaken the world.
I'm going to read a couple more books on this subject. I'd avoided them because I think the Effective Altruists are sort of sickening in their holier-than-thou, smarter-than-thou, bigger-picture-than-thou ways. They are smug and gross, and they use their philosophy to justify working on Wall Street and other scummy places, and they think they are more important than everyone else. Singer doesn't seem that way, however, and it will be interesting to back to the source (his writings) and see what else he has to say.
January 9, 2026
Death in a Shallow Pond is an unusually good history of effective altruism and reflection on the drowning child thought experiment, but it has a number of smaller issues that in my view make it merely good rather than great.
The book’s format was unusual, but I ended up enjoying its approach quite a lot. The first half of the book gives a biography of Singer leading up to the publication of "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," then traces the article’s impact with a particular focus on the effective altruism movement. The second half digs into the philosophical questions raised by the drowning child thought experiment, covering a number of potential critiques and responses. The historical section is well researched, giving a thorough and engaging history of the beginnings of the EA movement. Even as someone with quite a bit of EA history knowledge, there were a number of details and stories that I hadn’t read before. And in the second half there are some moments where Edmonds’s philosophical training really shines, such as in his rebuttal to the institutional critique (he points out, for example, that the critics who argue that EAs’ consequentialism treats people as a mere means are often the same ones arguing that philanthropy is harmful because it reduces pressures to create long-term systemic change). Edmonds’s humor also suffuses the whole text and makes the book a fun read.
However, as enjoyable as the book was, it was frustrating at times. The second half is oddly organized, with Edmonds framing it as one critique per chapter while including chapters that don’t really seem like critiques at all (particularly the chapter titled “The Motivational Critique”). And Edmonds is inconsistent in which critiques he does and doesn’t provide a rebuttal for, in a way that makes the chapters feel odd to read. This inconsistency is notable in his discussion of Deaton’s and Easterly’s criticisms of development aid, where I think he fails to properly contextualize their viewpoints relative to the views of other economists. I suspect that readers not already versed in the development economics literature might come away from that section thinking that there is something close to an anti-aid consensus among development economists, which could have been easily prevented by providing contrasting quotes from any of the highly-respected economists who are broadly supportive of EA-style evidence-based aid (e.g. Duflo, Banerjee, Kremer). There are also a number of points where I worry that Edmonds fails to communicate the best version of certain EA views. For example, the paperclip maximizer thought experiment is the only concrete example he gives in his discussion of the case for existential risk from AI. This is a fun introductory thought experiment to get people thinking about the challenges of AI alignment, but it doesn’t reflect the actual worries of people concerned about AI-related risks.
Lastly, I’m not entirely sure what to make of the book’s approach of saving all discussion of Singer’s controversies for the final chapter. I can see the case for the book’s approach - the format keeps the focus on the drowning child and its impact, without whitewashing Singer’s more controversial views. But the placement also felt a bit like it was trying to hide something.
All told, I think Death in a Shallow Pond is worth reading for anyone interested in EA's origins or Singer's influence, even if it’s imperfect.
The book’s format was unusual, but I ended up enjoying its approach quite a lot. The first half of the book gives a biography of Singer leading up to the publication of "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," then traces the article’s impact with a particular focus on the effective altruism movement. The second half digs into the philosophical questions raised by the drowning child thought experiment, covering a number of potential critiques and responses. The historical section is well researched, giving a thorough and engaging history of the beginnings of the EA movement. Even as someone with quite a bit of EA history knowledge, there were a number of details and stories that I hadn’t read before. And in the second half there are some moments where Edmonds’s philosophical training really shines, such as in his rebuttal to the institutional critique (he points out, for example, that the critics who argue that EAs’ consequentialism treats people as a mere means are often the same ones arguing that philanthropy is harmful because it reduces pressures to create long-term systemic change). Edmonds’s humor also suffuses the whole text and makes the book a fun read.
However, as enjoyable as the book was, it was frustrating at times. The second half is oddly organized, with Edmonds framing it as one critique per chapter while including chapters that don’t really seem like critiques at all (particularly the chapter titled “The Motivational Critique”). And Edmonds is inconsistent in which critiques he does and doesn’t provide a rebuttal for, in a way that makes the chapters feel odd to read. This inconsistency is notable in his discussion of Deaton’s and Easterly’s criticisms of development aid, where I think he fails to properly contextualize their viewpoints relative to the views of other economists. I suspect that readers not already versed in the development economics literature might come away from that section thinking that there is something close to an anti-aid consensus among development economists, which could have been easily prevented by providing contrasting quotes from any of the highly-respected economists who are broadly supportive of EA-style evidence-based aid (e.g. Duflo, Banerjee, Kremer). There are also a number of points where I worry that Edmonds fails to communicate the best version of certain EA views. For example, the paperclip maximizer thought experiment is the only concrete example he gives in his discussion of the case for existential risk from AI. This is a fun introductory thought experiment to get people thinking about the challenges of AI alignment, but it doesn’t reflect the actual worries of people concerned about AI-related risks.
Lastly, I’m not entirely sure what to make of the book’s approach of saving all discussion of Singer’s controversies for the final chapter. I can see the case for the book’s approach - the format keeps the focus on the drowning child and its impact, without whitewashing Singer’s more controversial views. But the placement also felt a bit like it was trying to hide something.
All told, I think Death in a Shallow Pond is worth reading for anyone interested in EA's origins or Singer's influence, even if it’s imperfect.
February 7, 2026
very good, readable discussion of history and impact (esp. in "effective altruism" movement) of Peter Singer's 1972 thought experiment (parable?) concerning whether you'd ruin your expensive suit and shoes by wading in to save a drowning toddler, and if so why not in the real world give away most/all your excess cash to charities/organizations that can and do save or drastically improve lives of children and adults in desperate circumstances globally?
Takes up and, mostly, counterargues various critiques of either Singer specifically or EA generally. These parts are lucid, but fwiw I could have used a bit more on (a) distinguishing between "X is commendable" and "you are morally obligated to do X" and/or (b) concern that provision of charitable aid lets some gov't.'s off the hook for actually reforming their social welfare and health care systems.
Conversely, I didn't need much if any time devoted to responding to the ad hominem stuff ("SBF espoused effective altruism and turned out to be a crypto fraud. Therefore EA is wrong" isn't worth much analysis), though I guess the bit about EA getting a bad name b/c attractive to white tech bros did have the benefit of making me think of Orwell's concern expressed in The Road to Wigan Pier that socialism would be unfairly discredited because......
“One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words ‘Socialism’ and ‘Communism’ draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.”
I first read this in a class I took on "moral and social inquiry" in about 1981, and it still makes me laugh (with apologies to Quakers and feminists etc.) to think that "fruit-juice drinker" would have been considered a sure sign of a flake at one time.
Anyway, back to the actual Edmonds book. Might be a little superficial if you're preoccupied with any one issue (complexities in estimating the quality-adjusted life years saved by any given aid intervention, etc.), but as an overview it seemed solid in my reading.
Takes up and, mostly, counterargues various critiques of either Singer specifically or EA generally. These parts are lucid, but fwiw I could have used a bit more on (a) distinguishing between "X is commendable" and "you are morally obligated to do X" and/or (b) concern that provision of charitable aid lets some gov't.'s off the hook for actually reforming their social welfare and health care systems.
Conversely, I didn't need much if any time devoted to responding to the ad hominem stuff ("SBF espoused effective altruism and turned out to be a crypto fraud. Therefore EA is wrong" isn't worth much analysis), though I guess the bit about EA getting a bad name b/c attractive to white tech bros did have the benefit of making me think of Orwell's concern expressed in The Road to Wigan Pier that socialism would be unfairly discredited because......
“One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words ‘Socialism’ and ‘Communism’ draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.”
I first read this in a class I took on "moral and social inquiry" in about 1981, and it still makes me laugh (with apologies to Quakers and feminists etc.) to think that "fruit-juice drinker" would have been considered a sure sign of a flake at one time.
Anyway, back to the actual Edmonds book. Might be a little superficial if you're preoccupied with any one issue (complexities in estimating the quality-adjusted life years saved by any given aid intervention, etc.), but as an overview it seemed solid in my reading.
October 6, 2025
I'd abandoned Edmonds' bio of Derek Parfit as it seemed scattered with digression, diluted by trivia, and hobbled by pedestrian prose. But the thinker intrigued, as had EA since (like Parfit) I'd learned of William MacAskill's career in the New Yorker. And I've been following Peter Singer for decades, too.
So Death in a Shallow Pond logically pairs with Edmond's previous subject. And shares the strengths (any popularization of philosophy with real-life impacts potentially improving ordinary people and especially those far from any Oxbridge long table or seminar niche is welcome) and weaknesses (same as in paragraph one). I wish he'd incorporated a nuanced critique of how NGOs and foreign aid and philanthropic campaigns may weaken the resolve of African and Latin American governments and institutions to take responsibility for their own actions: see the testimony of early Peace Corps writers Moritz Thomsen, Peter Mattheisson, and Paul Theroux. Instead, Edmonds doesn't even mention it.
Similarly, he skips about Singer, with the initial investigation roaming afar into culture and politics from his formative years, which maybe is needed for a younger generation, but feels too much potted history of postwar Western concerns. Then, after examining objections to EA, he jumps back in a coda to look at Singer's controversial positions, which seems after the fact and disjointed. However, at least Death in a Shallow Pond despite uneven coverage does apply academic pursuit to practical matters, in an era when most professors prefer to pose as social justice warriors while safely tenured in sinecures.
So Death in a Shallow Pond logically pairs with Edmond's previous subject. And shares the strengths (any popularization of philosophy with real-life impacts potentially improving ordinary people and especially those far from any Oxbridge long table or seminar niche is welcome) and weaknesses (same as in paragraph one). I wish he'd incorporated a nuanced critique of how NGOs and foreign aid and philanthropic campaigns may weaken the resolve of African and Latin American governments and institutions to take responsibility for their own actions: see the testimony of early Peace Corps writers Moritz Thomsen, Peter Mattheisson, and Paul Theroux. Instead, Edmonds doesn't even mention it.
Similarly, he skips about Singer, with the initial investigation roaming afar into culture and politics from his formative years, which maybe is needed for a younger generation, but feels too much potted history of postwar Western concerns. Then, after examining objections to EA, he jumps back in a coda to look at Singer's controversial positions, which seems after the fact and disjointed. However, at least Death in a Shallow Pond despite uneven coverage does apply academic pursuit to practical matters, in an era when most professors prefer to pose as social justice warriors while safely tenured in sinecures.
December 8, 2025
David Edmonds presents a compelling read on the rise, spread, micro-falls, and failures of effective altruism over the years. It’s filled with academic tidbits — philosophy experiments that have been used to talk about abortion and utilitarianism, EA’s evolution from closing gaps in charity across distance, species, and most recently time.
I especially liked the second half of the book, which presents various arguments against EA. These include the fact that maybe altruism is inherently and practically a personal act; the harmful effects of foreign aid; the distinction between charity and reparations, and the importance of history in distinguishing the two; and the paternalism of it all. Specific notes:
- Peter Singer doesn’t approve of longtermism?!
- Philosophy is scaffolded with crazy crazy thought experiments. They’re such unique pieces of text (simple, often magical, immediately evocative, yet rich enough to question conventional thought), I do wonder if LLMs could generate them
- Peter Singer has had a long history of cancellations, for defending the morality of post-birth abortion and bestiality. Princeton gave him a bomb scanner bc of all the death threats!!
I like a lot about this book’s structure. First half about the history of ideas, some about their effects in practice. First half about the opportunities/potential of an idea, second about the unanticipated harms. I want more books like this!
I especially liked the second half of the book, which presents various arguments against EA. These include the fact that maybe altruism is inherently and practically a personal act; the harmful effects of foreign aid; the distinction between charity and reparations, and the importance of history in distinguishing the two; and the paternalism of it all. Specific notes:
- Peter Singer doesn’t approve of longtermism?!
- Philosophy is scaffolded with crazy crazy thought experiments. They’re such unique pieces of text (simple, often magical, immediately evocative, yet rich enough to question conventional thought), I do wonder if LLMs could generate them
- Peter Singer has had a long history of cancellations, for defending the morality of post-birth abortion and bestiality. Princeton gave him a bomb scanner bc of all the death threats!!
I like a lot about this book’s structure. First half about the history of ideas, some about their effects in practice. First half about the opportunities/potential of an idea, second about the unanticipated harms. I want more books like this!
December 30, 2025
I loved this book-length exploration of a famous moral philosophy thought experiment -- where it came from, what it has generated, how it has been critiqued. As someone who considers effective altruism ("EA") a core part of her identity, I particularly enjoyed the final chapter, which could be fairly summarized as "don't hate me because I'm beautiful." I would have liked more depth on the criticisms of EA, for example, data to refute it (if Edmonds concludes the criticism is not valid) or discussion of how to improve our conduct or giving to account for the issue (if Edmonds concludes the criticism is valid).
October 8, 2025
The author delves into the thought experiment ("The Drowning Child") posed by philosopher Peter Singer that intends to show that: If we can prevent something bad from occurring without sacrificing anything of equal moral value, we ought, morally to do it. Edmonds then traces the impact Singer's view had on philanthropy. Fascinating in the 1st 1/2 a bit flat in the 2nd.
October 10, 2025
A decent biography of Peter Singer, Will MacAskill, Toby Ord, and the Effective Altruism movement, focused around the Shallow Pond thought experiment from "Famine, Affluence and Morality". The second half presents some mild criticisms towards EA. Nothing new, but it's not bad as a biography of Effective Altruism, and it's pretty easy to read.
November 4, 2025
Pretty quick read. I enjoyed the first half more than the second, but it was well worth the time. I feel like the early EA proponents were naive in much the same way those of us in the early web/social days were naive about how big money would negatively affect more positive optimistic goals and our broader ability to counterbalance.
November 30, 2025
The main takeaway is this. Almost everyone could be doing more to help those in need. Significantly more.
Read
February 11, 2026I was largely familiar with the ground this book covers but it did offer some arguments and anecdotes that were new to me. Overall, a good primer on the subject.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews