I haven’t seen any EAs (except Steven Pinker) donate or grant here so it might be an overlooked/undervalued opportunity. Besides Pinker and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, I didn’t recognize any of the donors on their donor list.
It seems strange to use the fraction of donors who are EAs as a negative signal, holding their total fundraising constant. Surely the information about implicit EA cost-effectiveness estimates is dominates the crowding out effect? In equilibrium this consideration would suggest that EA giving should be equally spread among all groups!
And if this was valid, you might not want EA opinions on the subject. Would you not then equally take persuasive EA arguments for giving there to be a reason to think it is not overlooked/undervalued?
Yes, on balance I suspect you’re right. But I also think individual donors should be looking for black swan opportunities.
Then you’d be looking for something with no donors. (Or nearly none.) The percent of them who were EAs wouldn’t be relevant.
I’m not sure that’s entirely true. The one’s who don’t care about effectiveness make the opportunity less neglected, but it still might be neglected relative to its effectiveness if EAs haven’t noticed the potential there.
Ah, like, if EAs have already discovered it, then you expect it to quickly reach saturation, efficient market style?