Prior discussion here, especially a long comment by Alexander Berger. I copied over one notable quote from that below.
I’m not aware of any convincing public justification for spending monies in this area as a better choice than spending in traditional cause areas, but I also don’t see evidence that abundance and growth is trying to compete with traditional EA cause areas for funding from the broader public.
In terms of scale, while this is a significant expansion of Open Phil’s overall work in the space, it’s a modest expansion of Good Ventures’ (from ~$15M to ~$20M/year). The remaining funding is coming from other donors. As we wrote in our annual review last week:
One implication of our growing work with other donors is that it’s increasingly incorrect to think about Open Philanthropy as a single unified funder making top-down decisions. Increasingly, our resources come from different partners who are devoted to different causes and have different preferences and limitations for their giving. Their philanthropic dollars are not fungible, and we would be doing them a disservice if we treated them as if they were… it’s clearly less true than in the past (not that it was ever perfectly true) that the distribution of grants we advise across causes reflects our leadership’s unconstrained recommendations.
Prior discussion here, especially a long comment by Alexander Berger. I copied over one notable quote from that below.
I’m not aware of any convincing public justification for spending monies in this area as a better choice than spending in traditional cause areas, but I also don’t see evidence that abundance and growth is trying to compete with traditional EA cause areas for funding from the broader public.