The title says that the EA movement is neglecting physical goods.
The first sentence of the post states that physical goods are central to GiveWell’s recommendations, which seems to argue that physical goods are not at all neglected by the EA movement.
A later sentence in bold says that it’s rare to see the people involved in physical goods giving talks and writing posts about what they do. But if physical goods are important because of (e.g.) their GiveWell recommendation, then aren’t there actually loads of talks about malaria nets and deworming? And if they’re important because of their relevance to coronavirus, I thought, again that facemasks and PPE get plenty of airtime?
I’m sorry if it sounds like I’m being difficult—it’s not meant that way. I just don’t understand the arguments in favour of the claim that physical goods are neglected in EA.
I’m just speculating, but I read the claim in the post to be: There’s not much discussion / active work in EA on how to improve / spin up the physical manufacture and distribution of physical goods beyond donating money to existing organisations. GiveWell’s recommendations and the talks given by AMF/SCI are good examples of EAs noticing others doing important work with physical objects who need money, and trying to direct money to them. But there’s much on how to become excellent at doing the logistical work involved, or go further and improve the way the logistics is done.
Yes, I’ve seen many wonderful talks within EA about operations, that is, running effective organizations. (I’m having trouble finding the links but I think there was at least one panel and on talk at EAG SF 2018) And I ran a panel about logistics at scale at EAG 2017 (https://www.eaglobal.org/talks/logistics-at-scale-panel/).
I wish there were were more about how to actually DO the work directly. I’ve met a few individuals here doing research projects and thinking about how to do things that don’t necessarily have industry experience, and I worry that people’s calibration for what’s feasible and how industry works might be too far off to make effective recommendations.
To provide a real world example, there was a very prescient research poster at EAG SF 2019 showing that in an epidemic where the USA would not be able to rely on out of country medical supplies, the amount of time it takes to start a factory is too long and therefore we should invest in this area. I spoke with the author to ask what he thought about supply chain issues, like getting all the skills, equipment, and materials to make supplies, and he hadn’t thought of it and realized that it would be a bigger issue than spinning up factories.
To take a step back, I believe that ‘effective altruism’ lower case is something much bigger than people with money earning to give to existing charities, and people good at math calculating which charities to give to. Though I imagine both of those activities will remain crucial to the movement.
I find this post confusing.
The title says that the EA movement is neglecting physical goods.
The first sentence of the post states that physical goods are central to GiveWell’s recommendations, which seems to argue that physical goods are not at all neglected by the EA movement.
A later sentence in bold says that it’s rare to see the people involved in physical goods giving talks and writing posts about what they do. But if physical goods are important because of (e.g.) their GiveWell recommendation, then aren’t there actually loads of talks about malaria nets and deworming? And if they’re important because of their relevance to coronavirus, I thought, again that facemasks and PPE get plenty of airtime?
I’m sorry if it sounds like I’m being difficult—it’s not meant that way. I just don’t understand the arguments in favour of the claim that physical goods are neglected in EA.
I’m just speculating, but I read the claim in the post to be: There’s not much discussion / active work in EA on how to improve / spin up the physical manufacture and distribution of physical goods beyond donating money to existing organisations. GiveWell’s recommendations and the talks given by AMF/SCI are good examples of EAs noticing others doing important work with physical objects who need money, and trying to direct money to them. But there’s much on how to become excellent at doing the logistical work involved, or go further and improve the way the logistics is done.
Yes, I’ve seen many wonderful talks within EA about operations, that is, running effective organizations. (I’m having trouble finding the links but I think there was at least one panel and on talk at EAG SF 2018) And I ran a panel about logistics at scale at EAG 2017 (https://www.eaglobal.org/talks/logistics-at-scale-panel/).
I wish there were were more about how to actually DO the work directly. I’ve met a few individuals here doing research projects and thinking about how to do things that don’t necessarily have industry experience, and I worry that people’s calibration for what’s feasible and how industry works might be too far off to make effective recommendations.
To provide a real world example, there was a very prescient research poster at EAG SF 2019 showing that in an epidemic where the USA would not be able to rely on out of country medical supplies, the amount of time it takes to start a factory is too long and therefore we should invest in this area. I spoke with the author to ask what he thought about supply chain issues, like getting all the skills, equipment, and materials to make supplies, and he hadn’t thought of it and realized that it would be a bigger issue than spinning up factories.
To take a step back, I believe that ‘effective altruism’ lower case is something much bigger than people with money earning to give to existing charities, and people good at math calculating which charities to give to. Though I imagine both of those activities will remain crucial to the movement.
I read it as “careers in physical goods”