Thanks for the thoughtful answers! Seems like you’ve pondered quite a bit on EA. Here are my comments and reactions, if you or others would like to read them:
On “*Does the EA community tend to overemphasize philanthropy? If so, why?...”
That’s the first time I heard of the etymology for philanthropy. Anyway, I think what you meant here is that you think the EA community overemphasizes working on causes that mainly help humans and farm animals, at the expense of other causes that help other beneficiaries, i.e. wild animals or the environment.
To some extent you are right, but maybe you’re not aware that some people and organizations in the EA community are also doing important work for wild animals and the environment. There are two EA-aligned organizations working on wild animal welfare, which are Animal Ethics and Wild Animal Initative.
Wild Animal Initiative became a top charity of Animal Charity Evaluators last year, and they focus on helping scientists, grantmakers, and decision-makers investigate important and understudied questions about wild animal welfare. You might be interested to read their research or donate to them. They wrote this article on trophic interactions, which you might be interested in given that you mentioned trophic cascades in a separate answer.
For the environment, the EA-aligned organization Founders Pledge has done research into what are the highest-impact funding opportunities for climate change here. I’m not an expert here, but it’s quite possible that these organizations may have a larger positive effect long-term for biodiversity and preventing further environmental damage than the Amazon Conservation Team, which you support.
On “*Do some in EA inadvertently select non-profits that are the least likely to survive?”
When you said “For me, an inability to raise funds effectively would be a disqualifier, not a qualifier”, I think it’s quite possible that the most evidence-based and effective charities are not the ones who can raise the funds most effectively to fill all of their funding gaps. Many non-EA recommended charities use disingenuous methods or work on heart-tugging causes to get funding, while EA recommended charities like GiveWell’s top charities work on less popular causes and do less disingenuous marketing. So in a way, I could see how EA does select non-profits that are less likely to survive, but that’s also a sign that EA is donating to the best funding opportunities. I think EA generally does well to make sure that the effective charities it supports don’t die off.
On “*Is it possible that some in EA over-fetishize measurement?”
I think this is somewhat true, but mainly for the causes of global health and development, and to a lesser extent animal welfare. EA is willing to be a lot more qualitative and speculative for longtermist projects.
On What’s the ideal ratio of analysis to action? When should people be held accountable to some form of action?
This is a good point to raise. The EA community does incentivize good debate and engagement on the forum, and consuming resources or joining discussion groups, and that could lead to less actual important work being done. But I’d like to think most people in EA are spending an acceptable amount of time on debating/argumentation, and are able to improve both their own and the community’s worldviews and decisions through this. And there are EAs who are more action-oriented, i.e. the founders who go through Charity Entrepreneurship’s incubation program!
Thanks for the thoughtful answers! Seems like you’ve pondered quite a bit on EA. Here are my comments and reactions, if you or others would like to read them:
On “*Does the EA community tend to overemphasize philanthropy? If so, why?...”
That’s the first time I heard of the etymology for philanthropy. Anyway, I think what you meant here is that you think the EA community overemphasizes working on causes that mainly help humans and farm animals, at the expense of other causes that help other beneficiaries, i.e. wild animals or the environment.
To some extent you are right, but maybe you’re not aware that some people and organizations in the EA community are also doing important work for wild animals and the environment. There are two EA-aligned organizations working on wild animal welfare, which are Animal Ethics and Wild Animal Initative.
Wild Animal Initiative became a top charity of Animal Charity Evaluators last year, and they focus on helping scientists, grantmakers, and decision-makers investigate important and understudied questions about wild animal welfare. You might be interested to read their research or donate to them. They wrote this article on trophic interactions, which you might be interested in given that you mentioned trophic cascades in a separate answer.
For the environment, the EA-aligned organization Founders Pledge has done research into what are the highest-impact funding opportunities for climate change here. I’m not an expert here, but it’s quite possible that these organizations may have a larger positive effect long-term for biodiversity and preventing further environmental damage than the Amazon Conservation Team, which you support.
On “*Do some in EA inadvertently select non-profits that are the least likely to survive?”
When you said “For me, an inability to raise funds effectively would be a disqualifier, not a qualifier”, I think it’s quite possible that the most evidence-based and effective charities are not the ones who can raise the funds most effectively to fill all of their funding gaps. Many non-EA recommended charities use disingenuous methods or work on heart-tugging causes to get funding, while EA recommended charities like GiveWell’s top charities work on less popular causes and do less disingenuous marketing. So in a way, I could see how EA does select non-profits that are less likely to survive, but that’s also a sign that EA is donating to the best funding opportunities. I think EA generally does well to make sure that the effective charities it supports don’t die off.
On “*Is it possible that some in EA over-fetishize measurement?”
I think this is somewhat true, but mainly for the causes of global health and development, and to a lesser extent animal welfare. EA is willing to be a lot more qualitative and speculative for longtermist projects.
On What’s the ideal ratio of analysis to action? When should people be held accountable to some form of action?
This is a good point to raise. The EA community does incentivize good debate and engagement on the forum, and consuming resources or joining discussion groups, and that could lead to less actual important work being done. But I’d like to think most people in EA are spending an acceptable amount of time on debating/argumentation, and are able to improve both their own and the community’s worldviews and decisions through this. And there are EAs who are more action-oriented, i.e. the founders who go through Charity Entrepreneurship’s incubation program!