Really interesting piece! It helps to frame things in the “beneficiaries” category, thanks very much for that framing!
Since the groups above seem to exhaust the space of beneficiaries (if what we care about is well-being), we can’t expect to get more effectiveness improvements in this way. In future, such improvements will have to come from finding new interventions, or intervention types. These are harder to find, and likely to lead to fewer orders of magnitude improvement.
This was one part I’m confused about. May it not be the case that new intervention types will be highly effective in the future?
For example, one intervention type I can think of it to get other people who are currently non-EAs to care more about addressing the needs of the three beneficiary groups. It seems that such an intervention, if effective and broad enough, may be a high magnitude improvement.
Really interesting piece! It helps to frame things in the “beneficiaries” category, thanks very much for that framing!
This was one part I’m confused about. May it not be the case that new intervention types will be highly effective in the future?
For example, one intervention type I can think of it to get other people who are currently non-EAs to care more about addressing the needs of the three beneficiary groups. It seems that such an intervention, if effective and broad enough, may be a high magnitude improvement.
Yes, I agree. ‘Fewer orders of magnitude of improvement’ does not preclude a hugely significant improvement. I’ll try to be clearer in my next post.