I really liked this post, and resonate strongly with the sentiment of “Nothing can take donating away from me, not even a bad day”.
Although I do direct work on biosecurity, my donations (~15% gross income) go almost entirely to global health and wellbeing, and some of this is because I want to be reassured that I had a positive impact, even if all my various speculative research ideas (and occasional unproductive depressive spirals) amount to nothing.
I would be curious how you feel that intersects with the wording of the GWWC pledge, which includes
I shall give __ to whichever organisations can most effectively use it to improve the lives of others
As the sort of pedant who loves a solemn vow, I wonder if my global health and wellbeing donations are technically fulfilling this pledge, based on my judgements of how to improve the lives of others. That said, this only bothers me a little because, you know, this mess of incoherent commitments is out here giving what she can, and I recognize that might not meet a theoretical threshold of “most effective”.
From an instrumental POV, donating to an effective charity that keeps you motivated to continue direct work is probably a good strategy. I sometimes donate to the LTFF, but would probably feel less motivated if all of my donations went there. “Fuzzies” from AMF help me stay motivated, and I think that increases my overall impact. If you’re concerned about the direct wording of the pledge and you feel longtermist charities are better in that regard, there’s probably some allocation between those and GH&D charities that would allow you to be in the sweet spot.
I can’t quite articulate why, but I feel that effective giving should be exciting and motivating. I would be sad if I knew people were stressing out about whether they’re doing the most good (impossible to tell) when they’re already doing a hell of a lot of good by giving to charities like AMF. Being excited and signalling to others that effective giving isn’t a chore is also good for inspiring others.
GWWC as an organisation recommends GiveWell top charities (what I assume you mean by GH&W charities), and a large fraction of the community gives there as well. That should be a pretty strong signal.
Within the broad portfolio of effective charities that EAs support, the decision of where to give often hinges on worldviews that are highly uncertain (should I donate to AMF, or the good food institute, or a wild animal research institute? What about a longtermist charity? It’s unclear a priori). To me, it’s perfectly sensible to hedge a bit with your overall altruistic portfolio (donate to neartermist global health charities while still doing direct longtermist work).
All of this stuff is really hard and unclear, so just do what you think is the best while also remembering it is nearly impossible to be a perfect effective altruist who always “maximizes the good”. And be proud of yourself for caring enough to think about it :)
some of this is because I want to be reassured that I had a positive impact, even if all my various speculative research ideas (and occasional unproductive depressive spirals) amount to nothing.
You may be interested to know that Open Philanthropy reasons similarly. At least that’s what I got from Ajeya Cotra’s discussion on worldview diversification with Rob Wiblin on the 80K podcast:
I think there’s something to be said for not going all in on what you believe a rigorously philosophical accounting would say to value. I think one way you could put it is that Open Phil is — as an institution — trying to place a big bet on this idea of doing utilitarian-ish, thoughtful, deep intellectual philanthropy, which has never been done before, and we want to give that bet its best chance. And we don’t necessarily want to tie that bet — like Open Phil’s value as an institution to the world — to a really hyper-specific notion of what that means.
I really liked this post, and resonate strongly with the sentiment of “Nothing can take donating away from me, not even a bad day”.
Although I do direct work on biosecurity, my donations (~15% gross income) go almost entirely to global health and wellbeing, and some of this is because I want to be reassured that I had a positive impact, even if all my various speculative research ideas (and occasional unproductive depressive spirals) amount to nothing.
I would be curious how you feel that intersects with the wording of the GWWC pledge, which includes
As the sort of pedant who loves a solemn vow, I wonder if my global health and wellbeing donations are technically fulfilling this pledge, based on my judgements of how to improve the lives of others. That said, this only bothers me a little because, you know, this mess of incoherent commitments is out here giving what she can, and I recognize that might not meet a theoretical threshold of “most effective”.
Hey! A few thoughts:
From an instrumental POV, donating to an effective charity that keeps you motivated to continue direct work is probably a good strategy. I sometimes donate to the LTFF, but would probably feel less motivated if all of my donations went there. “Fuzzies” from AMF help me stay motivated, and I think that increases my overall impact. If you’re concerned about the direct wording of the pledge and you feel longtermist charities are better in that regard, there’s probably some allocation between those and GH&D charities that would allow you to be in the sweet spot.
I can’t quite articulate why, but I feel that effective giving should be exciting and motivating. I would be sad if I knew people were stressing out about whether they’re doing the most good (impossible to tell) when they’re already doing a hell of a lot of good by giving to charities like AMF. Being excited and signalling to others that effective giving isn’t a chore is also good for inspiring others.
GWWC as an organisation recommends GiveWell top charities (what I assume you mean by GH&W charities), and a large fraction of the community gives there as well. That should be a pretty strong signal.
Within the broad portfolio of effective charities that EAs support, the decision of where to give often hinges on worldviews that are highly uncertain (should I donate to AMF, or the good food institute, or a wild animal research institute? What about a longtermist charity? It’s unclear a priori). To me, it’s perfectly sensible to hedge a bit with your overall altruistic portfolio (donate to neartermist global health charities while still doing direct longtermist work).
All of this stuff is really hard and unclear, so just do what you think is the best while also remembering it is nearly impossible to be a perfect effective altruist who always “maximizes the good”. And be proud of yourself for caring enough to think about it :)
You may be interested to know that Open Philanthropy reasons similarly. At least that’s what I got from Ajeya Cotra’s discussion on worldview diversification with Rob Wiblin on the 80K podcast: