My best guess is that it is good for GWWC to increase the number of pledgers. Basically, because I think some of the donations are roughly as likely to be harmful as beneficial, and others are beneficial. I do not seem to see any donations as robustly harmful.
However, since only 13.3 % of the donations go to the area of creating a better future, assuming donations going to improving human and animal welfare have a 50 % chance of being beneficial/harmful, 2 out of 5 (as (1 − 13.3 %)/2 = 43.4 %) pledgers have net harmful donations. I have very little confidence in this claim.
Hi Robi,
My best guess is that it is good for GWWC to increase the number of pledgers. Basically, because I think some of the donations are roughly as likely to be harmful as beneficial, and others are beneficial. I do not seem to see any donations as robustly harmful.
However, since only 13.3 % of the donations go to the area of creating a better future, assuming donations going to improving human and animal welfare have a 50 % chance of being beneficial/harmful, 2 out of 5 (as (1 − 13.3 %)/2 = 43.4 %) pledgers have net harmful donations. I have very little confidence in this claim.