You discuss the allocation of funds across your 2 main areas, global health and wellbeing (GHW) and global catastrophic risks (GCR), but (as before) you do not say anything about the allocation across animal and human interventions in the GHW portfolio. I assume you do not think the funding going towards animal welfare interventions should be greatly increased, but I would say you should at least be transparent about your views.
For reference, I estimate the cost-effectiveness of corporate campaigns for chicken welfare is 13.6 DALY/$ (= 0.01*1.37*10^3), i.e. 680 (= 13.6/0.02) times Open Philanthropy’s bar. I got that multiplying:
The cost-effectiveness of GiveWell’s top charities of 0.01 DALY/$ (50 DALY per 5 k$), which is half of Open Philanthropy’s bar of 0.02 DALY/$.
My estimate for the ratio between cost-effectiveness of corporate campaigns for chicken welfare and GiveWell’s top charities of 1.37 k (= 1.71*10^3/0.682*2.73/5):
I calculated corporate campaigns for broiler welfare increase neaterm welfare 1.71 k times as cost-effectively as the lowest cost to save a life among GiveWell’s top charities then of 3.5 k$, respecting a cost-effectiveness of 0.286 life/k$ (= 1/(3.5*10^3)).
The current mean reciprocal of the cost to save a life of GiveWell’s 4 top charities is 0.195 life/k$ (= (3*1/5 + 1⁄5.5)*10^-3/4), i.e. 68.2 % (= 0.195/0.286) as high as the cost-effectiveness I just mentioned.
The ratio of 1.71 k in the 1st bullet respects campaigns for broiler welfare, but Saulius estimated ones for chicken welfare (broilers or hens) affect 2.73 (= 41⁄15) as many chicken-years.
OP thinks “the marginal FAW [farmed animal welfare] funding opportunity is ~1/5th as cost-effective as the average from Saulius’ analysis”.
I work on Open Phil’s communications team. Regarding how Open Phil thinks about allocating between human and animal interventions, this comment from Emily (the one you linked in your own comment) is the best summary of our current thinking.
Hello again Alex,
You discuss the allocation of funds across your 2 main areas, global health and wellbeing (GHW) and global catastrophic risks (GCR), but (as before) you do not say anything about the allocation across animal and human interventions in the GHW portfolio. I assume you do not think the funding going towards animal welfare interventions should be greatly increased, but I would say you should at least be transparent about your views.
For reference, I estimate the cost-effectiveness of corporate campaigns for chicken welfare is 13.6 DALY/$ (= 0.01*1.37*10^3), i.e. 680 (= 13.6/0.02) times Open Philanthropy’s bar. I got that multiplying:
The cost-effectiveness of GiveWell’s top charities of 0.01 DALY/$ (50 DALY per 5 k$), which is half of Open Philanthropy’s bar of 0.02 DALY/$.
My estimate for the ratio between cost-effectiveness of corporate campaigns for chicken welfare and GiveWell’s top charities of 1.37 k (= 1.71*10^3/0.682*2.73/5):
I calculated corporate campaigns for broiler welfare increase neaterm welfare 1.71 k times as cost-effectively as the lowest cost to save a life among GiveWell’s top charities then of 3.5 k$, respecting a cost-effectiveness of 0.286 life/k$ (= 1/(3.5*10^3)).
The current mean reciprocal of the cost to save a life of GiveWell’s 4 top charities is 0.195 life/k$ (= (3*1/5 + 1⁄5.5)*10^-3/4), i.e. 68.2 % (= 0.195/0.286) as high as the cost-effectiveness I just mentioned.
The ratio of 1.71 k in the 1st bullet respects campaigns for broiler welfare, but Saulius estimated ones for chicken welfare (broilers or hens) affect 2.73 (= 41⁄15) as many chicken-years.
OP thinks “the marginal FAW [farmed animal welfare] funding opportunity is ~1/5th as cost-effective as the average from Saulius’ analysis”.
Hi Vasco,
Thanks for asking these questions.
I work on Open Phil’s communications team. Regarding how Open Phil thinks about allocating between human and animal interventions, this comment from Emily (the one you linked in your own comment) is the best summary of our current thinking.