I think itās normal, and even good that the EA community doesnāt have a clear prioritization of where to donate. People have different values and different beliefs, and so prioritize donations to different projects.
It is hard to know exactly how high impact animal welfare funding opportunities interact with x-risk ones
What do you mean? I donāt understand how animal welfare campaigns interact with x-risks, except for reducing the risk of future pandemics, but I donāt think thatās what you had in mind (and even then, I donāt think those are the kinds of pandemics that x-risk minded people worry about)
I donāt know what the general consensus on the most impactful x-risk funding opportunities are
It seems clear to me that there is no general consensus, and some of the most vocal groups are actively fighting against each other.
I donāt really know what orgs do all-considered work on this topic. I guess the LTFF?
You can see Giving What We Can recommendations for global catrastrophic risk reduction on this page[1] (i.e. thereās also Longviewās Emerging Challenges Fund). Many other orgs and foundations work on x-risk reduction, e.g. Open Philanthropy.
I am more confused/āinattentive and this community is covering a larger set of possible choices so itās harder to track what consensus is
I think that if there were consensus that a single project was obviously the best, we would all have funded it already, unless it was able to productively use very very high amounts of money (e.g., cash transfers)
I think itās normal, and even good that the EA community doesnāt have a clear prioritization of where to donate. People have different values and different beliefs, and so prioritize donations to different projects.
What do you mean? I donāt understand how animal welfare campaigns interact with x-risks, except for reducing the risk of future pandemics, but I donāt think thatās what you had in mind (and even then, I donāt think those are the kinds of pandemics that x-risk minded people worry about)
It seems clear to me that there is no general consensus, and some of the most vocal groups are actively fighting against each other.
You can see Giving What We Can recommendations for global catrastrophic risk reduction on this page[1] (i.e. thereās also Longviewās Emerging Challenges Fund). Many other orgs and foundations work on x-risk reduction, e.g. Open Philanthropy.
I think that if there were consensus that a single project was obviously the best, we would all have funded it already, unless it was able to productively use very very high amounts of money (e.g., cash transfers)
Disclaimer: I work at GWWC