Reading this post after going through funding options, I notice that:
There are many more avenues for funding long-termism projects than neartermism ones. GiveWell holds almost a monopoly and is not set up to fund the full spectrum of opportunities. For example:
no funding for neartermism-specific community building
no funding for alternative paradigms (economic growth, scientific research, improving institutional decision making, subjective well-being)
no career support
no support for smaller projects that aren’t explicitly aiming to become a charity
As a result, I think many junior EAs really drift towards long-termism because that’s where the funding is.
I don’t know how much of OpenPhil’s neartermism funding is informed by GiveWell, or how OpenPhil decides on neartermism funding outside of GiveWell.
Writing this all up, makes me tentatively believe it’s a mistake to delegate the Global Health & Well-being fund to GiveWell, and that the neartermism funding space needs development.
It’s also possible that I’m wrong about the above. In that case, I still expect many people to share my perception of the neartermism space. This perception probably contributes to the view that ‘EA is currently primarily about long-termism’.
The EAIF funds many of the things you listed and Peter Wildeford has been especially interested in making them happen! Also, the Open Phil GHW team is expanding a lot and has been funding several excellent grants in these areas.
That said, I agree with the overall sentiment you expressed and definitely think there’s something there.
One effect is also: there’s not so much proactive encouragement to apply for funding with neartermist projects, which results in fewer things getting funded, with results in people assuming that there’s no funding, even though sometimes funders are quite open to funding the kinds of things you mention.
I do think there are opportunities that GiveWell is missing, but then again I’ve found it hard to find grantmakers who would actually do better than them.
Reading this post after going through funding options, I notice that:
There are many more avenues for funding long-termism projects than neartermism ones. GiveWell holds almost a monopoly and is not set up to fund the full spectrum of opportunities. For example:
no funding for neartermism-specific community building
no funding for alternative paradigms (economic growth, scientific research, improving institutional decision making, subjective well-being)
no career support
no support for smaller projects that aren’t explicitly aiming to become a charity
As a result, I think many junior EAs really drift towards long-termism because that’s where the funding is.
I don’t know how much of OpenPhil’s neartermism funding is informed by GiveWell, or how OpenPhil decides on neartermism funding outside of GiveWell.
Writing this all up, makes me tentatively believe it’s a mistake to delegate the Global Health & Well-being fund to GiveWell, and that the neartermism funding space needs development.
It’s also possible that I’m wrong about the above. In that case, I still expect many people to share my perception of the neartermism space. This perception probably contributes to the view that ‘EA is currently primarily about long-termism’.
The EAIF funds many of the things you listed and Peter Wildeford has been especially interested in making them happen! Also, the Open Phil GHW team is expanding a lot and has been funding several excellent grants in these areas.
That said, I agree with the overall sentiment you expressed and definitely think there’s something there.
One effect is also: there’s not so much proactive encouragement to apply for funding with neartermist projects, which results in fewer things getting funded, with results in people assuming that there’s no funding, even though sometimes funders are quite open to funding the kinds of things you mention.
I do think there are opportunities that GiveWell is missing, but then again I’ve found it hard to find grantmakers who would actually do better than them.