Wait, I’m a little confused a bit by the vote distribution and the comments—are cash transfers not considered a central EA cause? I thought GiveDirectly was absolutely a part of EA space?
Is the disagreement that:
cash transfers/​givedirectly isn’t an EA cause area
it is, but it’s not/​shouldn’t a central cause area
it is both of the above, but this wouldn’t end extreme poverty[1]
the tone/​vibe of the post
other
I’m a bit confused tbh. I like GiveDirectly and Natalie’s talk.
First, some terminology: cash transfers are an intervention within the Cause Area of extreme poverty.
Their effectiveness needs to be compared to other available interventions. GiveWell is an organization that does just that, and they found bednets much more effective than cash transfers. I suppose many EAs choose to follow GiveWell on these judgements.
While Give Directly is definitely awesome and more effective than most charities, they don’t really put together a convincing argument that they are more effective than bednets in this post.
In general, I do like their point that we should think beyond the marginal donation. However, this isn’t a post about politics or how to influence large amounts of money. It’s a post that wants to get you to donate to Give Directly.
Thanks for the comment ludwig :) So I do sympathise with what you say, though I think that differences between Givewell, GiveDirectly, and the Happier Lives Institute are perhaps better modelled as disagreements about what counts as value (lives saved/​QALY vs autonomy vs happiness as a gross oversimplification) than how to count it.
I think another thing that I’m slightly suspicious of here is the rigorous demands for GiveDirectly to show their workings vs bednets in this thread, but very little of the same rigour seems to apply to work in AI Safety for example—can those organisations show that their work is more effective than closing AMF’s funding gap, or massively scaling up cash transfers to end extreme poverty? If we instead are justifying AI Safety work from a more pluralistic ‘basket of moral goods’ perspective, then I think GiveDirectly does well under that framing too.
Wait, I’m a little confused a bit by the vote distribution and the comments—are cash transfers not considered a central EA cause? I thought GiveDirectly was absolutely a part of EA space?
Is the disagreement that:
cash transfers/​givedirectly isn’t an EA cause area
it is, but it’s not/​shouldn’t a central cause area
it is both of the above, but this wouldn’t end extreme poverty[1]
the tone/​vibe of the post
other
I’m a bit confused tbh. I like GiveDirectly and Natalie’s talk.
or perhaps the reason that it wouldn’t is a reason why it shouldn’t be a central cause area?
First, some terminology: cash transfers are an intervention within the Cause Area of extreme poverty.
Their effectiveness needs to be compared to other available interventions. GiveWell is an organization that does just that, and they found bednets much more effective than cash transfers. I suppose many EAs choose to follow GiveWell on these judgements.
While Give Directly is definitely awesome and more effective than most charities, they don’t really put together a convincing argument that they are more effective than bednets in this post. In general, I do like their point that we should think beyond the marginal donation. However, this isn’t a post about politics or how to influence large amounts of money. It’s a post that wants to get you to donate to Give Directly.
Thanks for the comment ludwig :) So I do sympathise with what you say, though I think that differences between Givewell, GiveDirectly, and the Happier Lives Institute are perhaps better modelled as disagreements about what counts as value (lives saved/​QALY vs autonomy vs happiness as a gross oversimplification) than how to count it.
I think another thing that I’m slightly suspicious of here is the rigorous demands for GiveDirectly to show their workings vs bednets in this thread, but very little of the same rigour seems to apply to work in AI Safety for example—can those organisations show that their work is more effective than closing AMF’s funding gap, or massively scaling up cash transfers to end extreme poverty? If we instead are justifying AI Safety work from a more pluralistic ‘basket of moral goods’ perspective, then I think GiveDirectly does well under that framing too.
Number 3 for me, although I didn’t vote