Really cool! Easy to use and looks great. Some feedback:
The word “offsetting” seems to have bad PR. But I quite like “Leave no harm” and “a clean slate”. I think the general idea could be really compelling to certain parts of the population. There is at least some subsection of the population that thinks about charity in a “guilty conscious” sense. Maybe guilt is a good framing, especially since it is more generalizable here than most charities are capable of eliciting.
I’m certainly not an expert on this, but I wonder if this could have particular appeal to religious groups? The concept of “Ahimsa” in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism seems relevant.
Last suggestion: Air pollution may be a good additional category of harms. I’m not sure what the best charity target would be though, given that it is hyper regional. Medical research? Could also add second-hand cigarette smoke to that.
Seems like the best bet is to make it as comprehensive as possible, without overly diluting the most important and evidence backed stuff like farmed animal welfare.
Yeah not great, but personally I think of it as a good thing so part of the hope with this is to turn the corner on the feeling of “offsetting”.
Maybe guilt is a good framing, especially since it is more generalizable here than most charities are capable of eliciting.
My goal is to make this site stick with people who are not familiar with EA in any way and possibly be a stepping stone from impact due to personal responsibility into impact for the sake of doing more good, regardless of how the opportunity got there. In order to do this I think I need to tap into the “do you have a vague, persistent sense of guilt” feeling and give the solution very quickly after. It’s definitely a balance between “think about the guilt of not doing this” vs “think about the pride you’ll feel after doing this” and going too hard in either direction here I think will be a huge turn off for most people.
I’m certainly not an expert on this, but I wonder if this could have particular appeal to religious groups? The concept of “Ahimsa” in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism seems relevant.
I don’t think I’d like to put religious framing on the site but connecting to communities who resonate with this kind of thing seems very useful.
Air pollution may be a good additional category of harms
I’ll do some research on this but I think this is covered by Climate? What are you imagining is air pollution harm but not climate harm?
I don’t have a good data source on hand, but my understanding is that pollution from car travel is particularly harmful to local air quality. Whereas, for instance, emissions from plane travel less so.
But yes, I assume some portion of Giving Green’s grantees do work that benefit air quality at least second hand. It could be included in the calculator as a harm but just directed to Giving Green as well.
I imagine finding unusually effective charities that focus on local air pollution will be very difficult, but I’ll give it some research! I think it’s a good idea and if I can find something like this I’ll try to add it to the site.
Really cool! Easy to use and looks great. Some feedback:
The word “offsetting” seems to have bad PR. But I quite like “Leave no harm” and “a clean slate”. I think the general idea could be really compelling to certain parts of the population. There is at least some subsection of the population that thinks about charity in a “guilty conscious” sense. Maybe guilt is a good framing, especially since it is more generalizable here than most charities are capable of eliciting.
I’m certainly not an expert on this, but I wonder if this could have particular appeal to religious groups? The concept of “Ahimsa” in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism seems relevant.
Last suggestion: Air pollution may be a good additional category of harms. I’m not sure what the best charity target would be though, given that it is hyper regional. Medical research? Could also add second-hand cigarette smoke to that.
Seems like the best bet is to make it as comprehensive as possible, without overly diluting the most important and evidence backed stuff like farmed animal welfare.
Yeah not great, but personally I think of it as a good thing so part of the hope with this is to turn the corner on the feeling of “offsetting”.
My goal is to make this site stick with people who are not familiar with EA in any way and possibly be a stepping stone from impact due to personal responsibility into impact for the sake of doing more good, regardless of how the opportunity got there. In order to do this I think I need to tap into the “do you have a vague, persistent sense of guilt” feeling and give the solution very quickly after. It’s definitely a balance between “think about the guilt of not doing this” vs “think about the pride you’ll feel after doing this” and going too hard in either direction here I think will be a huge turn off for most people.
I don’t think I’d like to put religious framing on the site but connecting to communities who resonate with this kind of thing seems very useful.
I’ll do some research on this but I think this is covered by Climate? What are you imagining is air pollution harm but not climate harm?
I don’t have a good data source on hand, but my understanding is that pollution from car travel is particularly harmful to local air quality. Whereas, for instance, emissions from plane travel less so.
But yes, I assume some portion of Giving Green’s grantees do work that benefit air quality at least second hand. It could be included in the calculator as a harm but just directed to Giving Green as well.
I imagine finding unusually effective charities that focus on local air pollution will be very difficult, but I’ll give it some research! I think it’s a good idea and if I can find something like this I’ll try to add it to the site.