I don’t think there exists any specific recommendations for ocean plastic pollution, and without a-priori arguments for why that cause area is potentially very promising, I don’t expect there will be a thorough one anytime soon.
In general, I think if you find yourself wanting to donate to a narrow cause area for which you don’t have strong evidence that it will be globally very effective, it is a good idea to ask yourself why you are actually interested in giving to that domain. Separating fuzzies from utilons is a phrase sometimes used around here, which suggests that if you have reasons other than effectivenes to donate to an area, that you should aim to actually optimize for that (such as the feeling of warmth of helping other people), and then separately optimize for doing the most good per dollar.
In this case, my suspicion is that you have other reasons for wanting to donate to an ocean plastic pollution charity, and that you would be better served introspecting on those reasons and seeing whether you can pursue them separately. Obviously, I can’t read your mind and I might be off here, so I apologize if I am misinterpreting you here.
Thanks for your input Habryka. I try to be pretty deliberate about optimizing for fuzzies some of the time (which tend to be local charities), but this one is more of a ‘most good per dollar’ type issue. To me, the time that EA gets the most nebulous is how to define ‘good’. Even if we narrowly define ‘good’ as human happiness, I think there are arguments to be made for environmental causes with long term effects such as animal extinction and plastic pollution.
I think you are right that there aren’t any in depth analyses of pollution related causes yet, but I’m hoping that the clear eyed gaze of someone in the EA community will turn to it at some point. Until then, I’m gonna try to extrapolate lessons from other areas about whether to contribute to policy change, research, clean up, etc. Thanks again
I don’t think there exists any specific recommendations for ocean plastic pollution, and without a-priori arguments for why that cause area is potentially very promising, I don’t expect there will be a thorough one anytime soon.
In general, I think if you find yourself wanting to donate to a narrow cause area for which you don’t have strong evidence that it will be globally very effective, it is a good idea to ask yourself why you are actually interested in giving to that domain. Separating fuzzies from utilons is a phrase sometimes used around here, which suggests that if you have reasons other than effectivenes to donate to an area, that you should aim to actually optimize for that (such as the feeling of warmth of helping other people), and then separately optimize for doing the most good per dollar.
In this case, my suspicion is that you have other reasons for wanting to donate to an ocean plastic pollution charity, and that you would be better served introspecting on those reasons and seeing whether you can pursue them separately. Obviously, I can’t read your mind and I might be off here, so I apologize if I am misinterpreting you here.
Thanks for your input Habryka. I try to be pretty deliberate about optimizing for fuzzies some of the time (which tend to be local charities), but this one is more of a ‘most good per dollar’ type issue. To me, the time that EA gets the most nebulous is how to define ‘good’. Even if we narrowly define ‘good’ as human happiness, I think there are arguments to be made for environmental causes with long term effects such as animal extinction and plastic pollution.
I think you are right that there aren’t any in depth analyses of pollution related causes yet, but I’m hoping that the clear eyed gaze of someone in the EA community will turn to it at some point. Until then, I’m gonna try to extrapolate lessons from other areas about whether to contribute to policy change, research, clean up, etc. Thanks again