That’s a very interesting topic that a lot has been written about without any clear credo emerging. Thanks for tackling it!
One observation: I think all GiveWell charities exhibit diminishing opportunities over time. Universal distributions as AMF conducts only make sense when intended as vector control intervention. Targeted distributions are about protecting people; with universal distributions, protecting people becomes a side effect. Primarily the people are the bait that is used to kill mosquitoes to disrupt the life cycle of plasmodium falciparum and vivax, and permanently get rid of malaria. That is not likely to be achieved soon or through LLINs alone, but it leads to diminishing opportunities. On the negative side, mosquitoes develop resistance against the currently known insecticides, which also diminishes opportunities in the future. SCI probably works similarly.
But just as with cultured meat (or egg white), vaccines, gene drives, and all that newfangled stuff can be a reason to invest into research or wait and donate more once these things can be scaled up.
Another observation: In the realm of altruistic, agent-neutral public good investing, I would hope to see no competition for impact, just cooperation. (I’m not referring to the ill-incentivized competition of funding of nonprofits.) In practice there is probably some competition but not much compared to the competition for profit in the for profit realm. The only real competition is with anopheles, schistosomiasis, STH, and some harmful memes, and the parasites’ aptitude at using their rapid evolution against us.
Hence, in order to create impact, you “only” have to understand nature, including human culture, and you can cooperate with countless others on achieving that. But to make profit, you have to understand nature too, and do so faster than others and maintain that speed. So I think it’s inherently harder.
Rather, we’re probably limited to the baseline you use, that of average economic growth. Developing countries have a lot of room for such growth, and studies have rumored that deworming and malaria elimination are linked to economic growth. If that’s at least partially a causal link (or even a feedback loop), we’re having part in this very economic growth too.
So we can probably beat those dumb parasites more easily than we can beat the for profit market, and we’re earning some of the 5% growth too, eroding whatever advantage for-profit investing it may have on direct investing.
One example of the ROI through deworming via Poor Economics:
In Kenya, children who were given deworming pills in school for two years went to school longer and earned, as young adults, 20 percent more than children in comparable schools who received deworming for just one year: Worms contribute to anemia and general malnutrition, essentially because they compete with the child for nutrients. … For example, the study of the long-term effect of deworming children in Kenya, mentioned above, concluded that being dewormed for two years instead of one (and hence being better nourished for two years instead of one) would lead to a lifetime income gain of $3,269 USD PPP. Small differences in investments in childhood nutrition (in Kenya, deworming costs $1.36 USD PPP per year; in India, a packet of iodized salt sells for $0.62 USD PPP; in Indonesia, fortified fish sauce costs $7 USD PPP per year) make a huge difference later on.
So to me very good opportunities through innovation in the future seem like the best argument for donating later.
That is really interesting about the improved economic prospects for dewormed children. That is indeed a strong argument for deworming this year rather than next year. These sorts of considerations need to be part of our analysis. It is unlikely that all methods of direct intervention will exhibit this sort of return, so it would seem that this ought to be part of our process when deciding which direct causes to donate to.
That’s a very interesting topic that a lot has been written about without any clear credo emerging. Thanks for tackling it!
One observation: I think all GiveWell charities exhibit diminishing opportunities over time. Universal distributions as AMF conducts only make sense when intended as vector control intervention. Targeted distributions are about protecting people; with universal distributions, protecting people becomes a side effect. Primarily the people are the bait that is used to kill mosquitoes to disrupt the life cycle of plasmodium falciparum and vivax, and permanently get rid of malaria. That is not likely to be achieved soon or through LLINs alone, but it leads to diminishing opportunities. On the negative side, mosquitoes develop resistance against the currently known insecticides, which also diminishes opportunities in the future. SCI probably works similarly.
But just as with cultured meat (or egg white), vaccines, gene drives, and all that newfangled stuff can be a reason to invest into research or wait and donate more once these things can be scaled up.
Another observation: In the realm of altruistic, agent-neutral public good investing, I would hope to see no competition for impact, just cooperation. (I’m not referring to the ill-incentivized competition of funding of nonprofits.) In practice there is probably some competition but not much compared to the competition for profit in the for profit realm. The only real competition is with anopheles, schistosomiasis, STH, and some harmful memes, and the parasites’ aptitude at using their rapid evolution against us.
Hence, in order to create impact, you “only” have to understand nature, including human culture, and you can cooperate with countless others on achieving that. But to make profit, you have to understand nature too, and do so faster than others and maintain that speed. So I think it’s inherently harder.
Rather, we’re probably limited to the baseline you use, that of average economic growth. Developing countries have a lot of room for such growth, and studies have rumored that deworming and malaria elimination are linked to economic growth. If that’s at least partially a causal link (or even a feedback loop), we’re having part in this very economic growth too.
So we can probably beat those dumb parasites more easily than we can beat the for profit market, and we’re earning some of the 5% growth too, eroding whatever advantage for-profit investing it may have on direct investing.
One example of the ROI through deworming via Poor Economics:
So to me very good opportunities through innovation in the future seem like the best argument for donating later.
That is really interesting about the improved economic prospects for dewormed children. That is indeed a strong argument for deworming this year rather than next year. These sorts of considerations need to be part of our analysis. It is unlikely that all methods of direct intervention will exhibit this sort of return, so it would seem that this ought to be part of our process when deciding which direct causes to donate to.