Thanks for the update, and making an online cost-effectiveness app!
For deprivationism, which is my prefered view on the badness of death, and your default parameters:
AMF is 1.89 times (= 56.67/29.95) as cost-effective as StrongMinds.
Friendship Bench is 1.02 times (= 57.56/56.67) as cost-effective as AMF.
However, I do not think AMF is the right reference. I estimate corporate campaigns for chicken welfare, like the ones supported by The Humane League, are 1.37 k times (= 1.71*10^3/0.682*2.73/5) as cost-effective as GiveWell’s top charities (one of which is AMF):
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 appreciate estimating the cost-effectiveness of animal welfare interventions in terms of WELLBY/$ presents some challenges (animals cannot be surveyed). Nonetheless, corporate campaigns for chicken welfare look way more cost-effective than GiveWell’s top charities based on the above, and neither StrongMinds nor Friendship Bench are clearly superior to AMF. So I do not see how StrongMinds or Friendship Bench could increase wellbeing more cost-effectively than corporate campaigns for chicken welfare.
Thanks for the update, and making an online cost-effectiveness app!
For deprivationism, which is my prefered view on the badness of death, and your default parameters:
AMF is 1.89 times (= 56.67/29.95) as cost-effective as StrongMinds.
Friendship Bench is 1.02 times (= 57.56/56.67) as cost-effective as AMF.
However, I do not think AMF is the right reference. I estimate corporate campaigns for chicken welfare, like the ones supported by The Humane League, are 1.37 k times (= 1.71*10^3/0.682*2.73/5) as cost-effective as GiveWell’s top charities (one of which is AMF):
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 appreciate estimating the cost-effectiveness of animal welfare interventions in terms of WELLBY/$ presents some challenges (animals cannot be surveyed). Nonetheless, corporate campaigns for chicken welfare look way more cost-effective than GiveWell’s top charities based on the above, and neither StrongMinds nor Friendship Bench are clearly superior to AMF. So I do not see how StrongMinds or Friendship Bench could increase wellbeing more cost-effectively than corporate campaigns for chicken welfare.