Although once you start accounting for ripple effects, it becomes very suspicious if someone claims that the best way to improve the future is to work on global poverty or donate to animal welfare and they aren’t proposing a specific intervention that is especially likely to ripple in a positive way.
I’d guess that basically any GHD charity that helps young people (whether saving lives from malaria or improving health and life prospects during developmentally important years) has positive ripple effects. I’ve love to see more evaluation of which are especially good prospects here, but I’m not aware of any such research upon which to base such a judgment.
For animal welfare, I highlighted lab-grown meat as having the greatest potential for transformative impact IMO—but note that I’m no expert here!
I’m not entirely convinced that either is “the best way to improve the future”, but the debate week limits us to picking between those two cause areas. Given unrestricted options, I’d probably pick different long-shots; but I still think GHD is well worth supporting from the perspective of (what I call) reliable global capacity growth, alongside things like basic research and lobbying for “progress” (pro-innovation policies and institutions).
Upvoted for sharing an interesting framing!
Although once you start accounting for ripple effects, it becomes very suspicious if someone claims that the best way to improve the future is to work on global poverty or donate to animal welfare and they aren’t proposing a specific intervention that is especially likely to ripple in a positive way.
I’d guess that basically any GHD charity that helps young people (whether saving lives from malaria or improving health and life prospects during developmentally important years) has positive ripple effects. I’ve love to see more evaluation of which are especially good prospects here, but I’m not aware of any such research upon which to base such a judgment.
For animal welfare, I highlighted lab-grown meat as having the greatest potential for transformative impact IMO—but note that I’m no expert here!
I’m not entirely convinced that either is “the best way to improve the future”, but the debate week limits us to picking between those two cause areas. Given unrestricted options, I’d probably pick different long-shots; but I still think GHD is well worth supporting from the perspective of (what I call) reliable global capacity growth, alongside things like basic research and lobbying for “progress” (pro-innovation policies and institutions).