(A nitpick responding to just one point and not the whole post)
I feel a bit wary of using SWP as your default example here because this comment from @Aaron Boddyđ¸ makes me think that SWP doesnât have a ton of room for rapidly deploying more funding right nowâIâd expect further donations to have lower marginal ROI than directly buying more stunners which I /âexpect/â is what youâre assuming in the counterfactual (which is not a dig at SWP, seems fine for them to use extra donations for lower marginal ROI things if their top priority tickets are comfortably funded!)
A broader point: Iâd expect the marginal ROI of additional funding in the invertebrate welfare space to diminish much faster than the marginal ROI of AMF donations.
I feel a bit wary of using SWP as your default example here because this comment from @Aaron Boddyđ¸ makes me think that SWP doesnât have a ton of room for rapidly deploying more funding right now
Aaron said SWPâs room for more funding in 2025 was âSomething in the ballpark of a few hundred thousand dollarsâ. I guess my post will influence much less than this, but I would also be happy with supporting SWP in subsequent years. SWPâs marginal cost-effectiveness would ideally be the same across time. If that was not the case, SWP should move funds from the worst to the best years until the marginal cost-effectiveness is the same across years. I think this is hard to achieve over long time horizons, but I assume their marginal cost-effectivenes is 2025 will not be too different from that in 2026.
A broader point: Iâd expect the marginal ROI of additional funding in the invertebrate welfare space to diminish much faster than the marginal ROI of AMF donations.
I tend to agree, because there is much more funding going towards AMF. On the other hand, donating to organisations doing research on invertebrate welfare like Arthropoda and WAI can open up more funding opportunities in the space. In any case, donating to invertebrate welfare seems way more cost-effective as of now. I do not even know whether donating to AMF is beneficial or harmful.
(A nitpick responding to just one point and not the whole post)
I feel a bit wary of using SWP as your default example here because this comment from @Aaron Boddyđ¸ makes me think that SWP doesnât have a ton of room for rapidly deploying more funding right nowâIâd expect further donations to have lower marginal ROI than directly buying more stunners which I /âexpect/â is what youâre assuming in the counterfactual (which is not a dig at SWP, seems fine for them to use extra donations for lower marginal ROI things if their top priority tickets are comfortably funded!)
A broader point: Iâd expect the marginal ROI of additional funding in the invertebrate welfare space to diminish much faster than the marginal ROI of AMF donations.
Thanks, Angelina.
Aaron said SWPâs room for more funding in 2025 was âSomething in the ballpark of a few hundred thousand dollarsâ. I guess my post will influence much less than this, but I would also be happy with supporting SWP in subsequent years. SWPâs marginal cost-effectiveness would ideally be the same across time. If that was not the case, SWP should move funds from the worst to the best years until the marginal cost-effectiveness is the same across years. I think this is hard to achieve over long time horizons, but I assume their marginal cost-effectivenes is 2025 will not be too different from that in 2026.
I also see Arthropoda Foundation and WAI as great donation options.
I tend to agree, because there is much more funding going towards AMF. On the other hand, donating to organisations doing research on invertebrate welfare like Arthropoda and WAI can open up more funding opportunities in the space. In any case, donating to invertebrate welfare seems way more cost-effective as of now. I do not even know whether donating to AMF is beneficial or harmful.