This is not a bad idea—in high school we had to run a charity fundraiser and I pushed us to support Pratham, which at the time was the only GiveWell-recommended charity in India. But I think supporting animal charities outright makes more sense, since you can probably have a bigger impact that way. The main concern with animal charities is the evidence base is not as strong, although it seems that the case for corporate outreach is pretty straightforward (which is probably why Open Phil made a grant in this area).
There could also be some overlap in helping developing countries reduce their birth rates, e.g. contracepitve availability, young female education, etc. This could increase per capita gdp, decrease child mortality and improve other metrics, without increasing total meat consumption exponentially. Perhaps this could be more of a focus area in EA.
I agree that family planning could become a new EA focus area. There is a facebook group to discuss family planning charities from a EA perspective. Giving What We Can has a great blog post on research around adolescent pregnancy. Development Media International is conducting a RCT to test whether radio programs can create demand for family planning.
Relevant: Repugnant Interventions, a great talk by Hilary Graves about how it’s plausibly inconsistent to support both life-saving interventions and family planning.
This is not a bad idea—in high school we had to run a charity fundraiser and I pushed us to support Pratham, which at the time was the only GiveWell-recommended charity in India. But I think supporting animal charities outright makes more sense, since you can probably have a bigger impact that way. The main concern with animal charities is the evidence base is not as strong, although it seems that the case for corporate outreach is pretty straightforward (which is probably why Open Phil made a grant in this area).
There could also be some overlap in helping developing countries reduce their birth rates, e.g. contracepitve availability, young female education, etc. This could increase per capita gdp, decrease child mortality and improve other metrics, without increasing total meat consumption exponentially. Perhaps this could be more of a focus area in EA.
I agree that family planning could become a new EA focus area. There is a facebook group to discuss family planning charities from a EA perspective. Giving What We Can has a great blog post on research around adolescent pregnancy. Development Media International is conducting a RCT to test whether radio programs can create demand for family planning.
Relevant: Repugnant Interventions, a great talk by Hilary Graves about how it’s plausibly inconsistent to support both life-saving interventions and family planning.
Both AMF and family planning improve lives, so in that sense they are compatible.
To the people who downvote us here (or perhaps just one guy with 2 accounts):
Feel free to provide actual constructive criticism. Or solve the problem of global poverty, child mortality, and animal suffering on your own.