I think that donor lotteries are a considerably stronger argument than GiveWell for the claim “donating 10% doesn’t have to be time-consuming.”
Your argument (with GiveWell in place of a lottery) requires that either (a) you think that GiveWell charities are clearly the best use of funds, or (b) by “doesn’t have to be time-consuming” you mean “if you don’t necessarily want to do the most good.” I don’t think you should be confused about why someone would disagree with (a), nor about why someone would think that (b) is a silly usage.
If there were low-friction donor lotteries, I suspect that most small GiveWell donors would be better-served by gambling up to perhaps $1M and then thinking about it at considerably greater length. I expect a significant fraction of them would end up funding something other than GiveWell top charities.
(I was originally supportive but kind of lukewarm about donor lotteries, but I think I’ve now come around to Carl’s level of enthusiasm.)
I think that donor lotteries are a considerably stronger argument than GiveWell for the claim “donating 10% doesn’t have to be time-consuming.”
Your argument (with GiveWell in place of a lottery) requires that either (a) you think that GiveWell charities are clearly the best use of funds, or (b) by “doesn’t have to be time-consuming” you mean “if you don’t necessarily want to do the most good.” I don’t think you should be confused about why someone would disagree with (a), nor about why someone would think that (b) is a silly usage.
If there were low-friction donor lotteries, I suspect that most small GiveWell donors would be better-served by gambling up to perhaps $1M and then thinking about it at considerably greater length. I expect a significant fraction of them would end up funding something other than GiveWell top charities.
(I was originally supportive but kind of lukewarm about donor lotteries, but I think I’ve now come around to Carl’s level of enthusiasm.)