Questions like this, which involve a really specific paper or program, are much more likely to get good answers if they include a summary of the relevant parts of the paper/âprogram.
Someone who starts reading this post will see the words âI am reading that the petty trade option...â.
Their next thoughts are likely to be âthe petty trade option of what? What is this post talking about? Do I need to read this entire paper to understand the post?â
The post would be easier to understand if you started by explaining what the THP is, the fact that theyâve tried multiple ways of providing assets, etc.
*****
On the question itself, the question that comes to mind for me is: Are we sure that one option is actually more effective than another, or do we still need more data? If non-conscious asset transfer was actually clearly better, Iâd think that Bandhan would want to abandon the other option themselves to have more impact. If Bandhan hasnât done so, this makes me think they arenât sure that one option is actually better. (Or maybe it is better, but only in certain locations, depending on local market conditions or something like that.)
Ok the wording has been changed. This is also a semi-rhetorical question, something like, wouldnât it be better if animals werenât factory farmed by humans but rather taken considerate motivated care of in order to exchange pleasant cooperation on meaningful objectives? These can sound a bit weird if they are presented in a way that does not compel people to empathize but rather get data in a concise manner to make further progress? Am I too influenced by the outside-of-EA world?
Yes, it makes sense. Maybe some people prefer livestock, just like many GD beneficiaries, because it provides a continuous source of income (such as from milk) and also can be sold in cases of emergencies. Still, assuming that there are enough persons who would benefit from the non-livestock transfer option (while those who would rather or more feasibly receive an animal asset would be left without funding), supporting only the non-conscious asset beneficiaries can set an important institutional norm of human economic growth not at the cost of other individualsâ suffering?
Questions like this, which involve a really specific paper or program, are much more likely to get good answers if they include a summary of the relevant parts of the paper/âprogram.
Someone who starts reading this post will see the words âI am reading that the petty trade option...â.
Their next thoughts are likely to be âthe petty trade option of what? What is this post talking about? Do I need to read this entire paper to understand the post?â
The post would be easier to understand if you started by explaining what the THP is, the fact that theyâve tried multiple ways of providing assets, etc.
*****
On the question itself, the question that comes to mind for me is: Are we sure that one option is actually more effective than another, or do we still need more data? If non-conscious asset transfer was actually clearly better, Iâd think that Bandhan would want to abandon the other option themselves to have more impact. If Bandhan hasnât done so, this makes me think they arenât sure that one option is actually better. (Or maybe it is better, but only in certain locations, depending on local market conditions or something like that.)
Ok the wording has been changed. This is also a semi-rhetorical question, something like, wouldnât it be better if animals werenât factory farmed by humans but rather taken considerate motivated care of in order to exchange pleasant cooperation on meaningful objectives? These can sound a bit weird if they are presented in a way that does not compel people to empathize but rather get data in a concise manner to make further progress? Am I too influenced by the outside-of-EA world?
Yes, it makes sense. Maybe some people prefer livestock, just like many GD beneficiaries, because it provides a continuous source of income (such as from milk) and also can be sold in cases of emergencies. Still, assuming that there are enough persons who would benefit from the non-livestock transfer option (while those who would rather or more feasibly receive an animal asset would be left without funding), supporting only the non-conscious asset beneficiaries can set an important institutional norm of human economic growth not at the cost of other individualsâ suffering?