I recommend funding GWWC and the Centre for Exploratory Altruism Researchâs (CEARCHâs) High Impact Philanthropy Fund (HIPF) due their effects on soil animals, which I think are practically proportional to the increase in agricultural-land-years per $. I estimate HIPF increases agricultural land 9.42 times as cost-effectively as GiveWellâs top charities, which is similar to my estimates for the giving multiplier of GWWC in 2023 and 2024.
A few quick comments:
GWWC donors donât only give to GiveWell (or other life-saving) charities, so youâd want to discount by the proportion going to them.
There might be other charities that GWWC supporters donate to that will increase soil animal populations in expectation, e.g. some diet change and alternative protein work. Youâd probably want to check the net effect combining them.
That crossed my mind, but I should have discussed it. I was guessing it would not matter. Based on numbers from GWWCâs impact evaluation of 2020 to 2022, the donations to improving human wellbeing were 78.3 % (= 0.65/â(0.65 + 0.07 + 0.11)) of those to improving human wellbeing, improving animal wellbeing, and creating a better future (the other category was âMultiple/âUnknownâ). I had something like that fraction in mind. However, I see now that GWWC estimated that only 45 % of the pledge donations from 2023 to 2024 went to global health and wellbeing, of which 94 % were high-impact donations. So 42.3 % (= 0.45*0.94) of the pledge donations from 2023 to 2024 went to high-impact global health and wellbeing interventions. I believe these are the overwhelming driver of GWWCâs benefits, and increase agricultural land roughly as cost-effectively as GiveWellâs top charities. So, for my preferred model 2, I estimate GWWC in 2023 and 2024 increased agricultural land 3.53 (= 8.34*0.423) times as cost-effectively as GiveWellâs top charities, and 37.5 % (= 3.53/â9.42) as cost-effectively as funding HIPF.
I replaced the paragraph before the acknowledgements with the following.
GWWC estimated 45 % of the pledge donations from 2023 to 2024 went to global health and wellbeing, of which 94 % were high-impact donations. So 42.3 % (= 0.45*0.94) of the pledge donations from 2023 to 2024 went to high-impact global health and wellbeing interventions. I believe these are the overwhelming driver of GWWCâs cost-effectiveness accounting for effects on soil animals, which I think is practically proportional to the increase in agricultural-land-years per $. In addition, I guess high-impact global health and wellbeing increase agricultural-land-years as cost-effectively as GiveWellâs top charities. As a result, for my preferred model 2, I estimate GWWC in 2023 and 2024 increased agricultural land 3.53 (= 8.34*0.423) times as cost-effectively as GiveWellâs top charities.
I still recommend funding HIPF. I estimate this increases agricultural land 9.42 (= 1.29*10^3/â137) times as cost-effectively as GiveWellâs top charities, 2.67 (= 9.42/â3.53) times as cost-effectively as GWWC in 2023 and 2024.
@Michael St Jules đ¸, I had initially said I removed the last bullet of the summary, but I have now replaced it with the following.
A few quick comments:
GWWC donors donât only give to GiveWell (or other life-saving) charities, so youâd want to discount by the proportion going to them.
There might be other charities that GWWC supporters donate to that will increase soil animal populations in expectation, e.g. some diet change and alternative protein work. Youâd probably want to check the net effect combining them.
Thanks, Michael.
That crossed my mind, but I should have discussed it. I was guessing it would not matter. Based on numbers from GWWCâs impact evaluation of 2020 to 2022, the donations to improving human wellbeing were 78.3 % (= 0.65/â(0.65 + 0.07 + 0.11)) of those to improving human wellbeing, improving animal wellbeing, and creating a better future (the other category was âMultiple/âUnknownâ). I had something like that fraction in mind. However, I see now that GWWC estimated that only 45 % of the pledge donations from 2023 to 2024 went to global health and wellbeing, of which 94 % were high-impact donations. So 42.3 % (= 0.45*0.94) of the pledge donations from 2023 to 2024 went to high-impact global health and wellbeing interventions. I believe these are the overwhelming driver of GWWCâs benefits, and increase agricultural land roughly as cost-effectively as GiveWellâs top charities. So, for my preferred model 2, I estimate GWWC in 2023 and 2024 increased agricultural land 3.53 (= 8.34*0.423) times as cost-effectively as GiveWellâs top charities, and 37.5 % (= 3.53/â9.42) as cost-effectively as funding HIPF.
I replaced the paragraph before the acknowledgements with the following.
@Michael St Jules đ¸, I had initially said I removed the last bullet of the summary, but I have now replaced it with the following.