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.
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.