This is true with respect to where a rational, EA-inclined person chooses to donate, but I think you’re taking it too far here. Even in the best case scenario, there will be MANY people who donate for non-EA reasons. Many of those people will donate to existing, well-known charities such as the Red Cross. If we can make the Red Cross more effective, I can’t see how that would not be a net good.
At the end of the day, the metric will always be the same. If you can make the entire red cross more effective, it may be that each unit of your effort was worth it. But if you anticipate more and more donations going to EA recommended charities, then making them even more effective may be more powerful.
Of course. But as I understand it, the hypothesis here is that given (i) the amount of money that will invariably go to sub-optimal charities; and (ii) the likely room for substantial improvements in sub-optimal charities (see DavidNash’s comment), that one (arguably) might get more bang for their buck trying to fix sub-optimal charities. I think it’s a plausible hypothesis.
I’m doubtful that one can make GiveWell charities substantially more effective. Those charities are already using the EA lens. It’s the ones that aren’t using the EA lens for which big improvements might be made at low cost.
EDIT: I suppose I’m assuming that’s the OP’s hypothesis. I could be wrong.
Yes this is indeed my hypothesis; thank you for stating it so plainly. I think you’ve summed up my initial idea quite well.
My assumption is that trying to improve a very effective charity is potentially a lot of work and research, while trying to improve an ineffective but well funded charity, even a little, could require less intense research and have a very large pay-off. Particularly given that there are very few highly effective charities but LOTS of semi-effective, or ineffective ones, meaning there is a larger opportunity. Even if only 10% of non EA charities agree to improve their programs by 1% I believe the potential for overall decrease in suffering is greater.
There is also the added benefit of signalling. Having an organization that is working to improve effectiveness (despite of funding problems [see Telofy’s comment]) shows organizations that donors and community members really care about measuring and improving outcomes. It plants the idea that effectiveness and an EA framework are valuable and worth considering. Even if they don’t use the service initially.
My thought here is this is another way (possibly a very fast one) to spread EA values through the charity world. Creating a shift in nonprofit culture to value similar things seems very beneficial.
The question I would ask then is, if you want to influence larger organization, why not governmental organizations, which have the largest quantities of resources that can be flipped by one individual? If you get a technical position in a public policy related organization, you may be responsible for substantial changes in allocation of resources.
I think that governmental orgs would be a great way to do this!
I do worry that doing this as an individual has it’s draw backs. I think getting to this sort of position requires ingraining yourself into a dysfunctional culture and I worry about getting sucked into the dysfunction, or succumbing to the multiple pressures and restraints within such an organization. Whereas an independent organization could remain more objective & focused on effectiveness.
This is true with respect to where a rational, EA-inclined person chooses to donate, but I think you’re taking it too far here. Even in the best case scenario, there will be MANY people who donate for non-EA reasons. Many of those people will donate to existing, well-known charities such as the Red Cross. If we can make the Red Cross more effective, I can’t see how that would not be a net good.
At the end of the day, the metric will always be the same. If you can make the entire red cross more effective, it may be that each unit of your effort was worth it. But if you anticipate more and more donations going to EA recommended charities, then making them even more effective may be more powerful.
See also DavidNash comment.
Of course. But as I understand it, the hypothesis here is that given (i) the amount of money that will invariably go to sub-optimal charities; and (ii) the likely room for substantial improvements in sub-optimal charities (see DavidNash’s comment), that one (arguably) might get more bang for their buck trying to fix sub-optimal charities. I think it’s a plausible hypothesis.
I’m doubtful that one can make GiveWell charities substantially more effective. Those charities are already using the EA lens. It’s the ones that aren’t using the EA lens for which big improvements might be made at low cost.
EDIT: I suppose I’m assuming that’s the OP’s hypothesis. I could be wrong.
Yes this is indeed my hypothesis; thank you for stating it so plainly. I think you’ve summed up my initial idea quite well.
My assumption is that trying to improve a very effective charity is potentially a lot of work and research, while trying to improve an ineffective but well funded charity, even a little, could require less intense research and have a very large pay-off. Particularly given that there are very few highly effective charities but LOTS of semi-effective, or ineffective ones, meaning there is a larger opportunity. Even if only 10% of non EA charities agree to improve their programs by 1% I believe the potential for overall decrease in suffering is greater.
There is also the added benefit of signalling. Having an organization that is working to improve effectiveness (despite of funding problems [see Telofy’s comment]) shows organizations that donors and community members really care about measuring and improving outcomes. It plants the idea that effectiveness and an EA framework are valuable and worth considering. Even if they don’t use the service initially.
My thought here is this is another way (possibly a very fast one) to spread EA values through the charity world. Creating a shift in nonprofit culture to value similar things seems very beneficial.
The question I would ask then is, if you want to influence larger organization, why not governmental organizations, which have the largest quantities of resources that can be flipped by one individual? If you get a technical position in a public policy related organization, you may be responsible for substantial changes in allocation of resources.
I think that governmental orgs would be a great way to do this!
I do worry that doing this as an individual has it’s draw backs. I think getting to this sort of position requires ingraining yourself into a dysfunctional culture and I worry about getting sucked into the dysfunction, or succumbing to the multiple pressures and restraints within such an organization. Whereas an independent organization could remain more objective & focused on effectiveness.