I think thatâs a great point! Theoretically, we should count all of those foundations and more, since theyâre all parts of âthe portfolio of everyoneâs actionsâ. (Though this would simply further cement the takeaway that global health is overfunded.)
Some reasons for focusing our optimization on âEAâs portfolioâ specifically:
Believing that non-EA-aligned actions have negligible effect compared to EA-aligned actions.
Since we wouldnât have planned to donate to ineffective interventions/âcause areas anyway, itâs unclear what effect including those in the portfolio would have on our decisionmaking, which is one reason why they may be safely ignorable.
Itâs far more tractable to derive EAâs portfolio than the portfolio of everyoneâs actions, or even the portfolio of everyoneâs charitable giving.
But I agree that these reasons arenât necessarily decisive. I just think there are enough reasons to do so, and this assumption has enough simplifying power, that for me itâs worth making.
Focusing solely in EAs has a bunch of weird effects though.
E.g. Iâve been thinking about some âsafeguarding democracyâ type interventions for longtermist reasons. If I looked at EA funding Iâd presumably conclude that the area was massively underfundedâalmost no one working on this. Whereas looking in a global sense the initial impression is that itâs a very large, well-funded area. (Maybe itâs still a useful heuristic though because explicitly longtermist funding and effort might focus on quite different subcomponents of the broad topic?)
And another one is just that how liberal you are in your definitions of whatâs EA or not can make quite a big difference. E.g. plausibly by a factor of 2 in the case of animal advocacy.
I think thatâs a great point! Theoretically, we should count all of those foundations and more, since theyâre all parts of âthe portfolio of everyoneâs actionsâ. (Though this would simply further cement the takeaway that global health is overfunded.)
Some reasons for focusing our optimization on âEAâs portfolioâ specifically:
Believing that non-EA-aligned actions have negligible effect compared to EA-aligned actions.
Since we wouldnât have planned to donate to ineffective interventions/âcause areas anyway, itâs unclear what effect including those in the portfolio would have on our decisionmaking, which is one reason why they may be safely ignorable.
Itâs far more tractable to derive EAâs portfolio than the portfolio of everyoneâs actions, or even the portfolio of everyoneâs charitable giving.
But I agree that these reasons arenât necessarily decisive. I just think there are enough reasons to do so, and this assumption has enough simplifying power, that for me itâs worth making.
Yeah it might be more tractable.
Focusing solely in EAs has a bunch of weird effects though.
E.g. Iâve been thinking about some âsafeguarding democracyâ type interventions for longtermist reasons. If I looked at EA funding Iâd presumably conclude that the area was massively underfundedâalmost no one working on this. Whereas looking in a global sense the initial impression is that itâs a very large, well-funded area. (Maybe itâs still a useful heuristic though because explicitly longtermist funding and effort might focus on quite different subcomponents of the broad topic?)
And another one is just that how liberal you are in your definitions of whatâs EA or not can make quite a big difference. E.g. plausibly by a factor of 2 in the case of animal advocacy.
(No need to reply, Iâm just musing.)
Thanks!