Beginning with Ayuda Efectiva, when we launched we had to decide how to approach what I would call a tough market: not much of a giving culture, low trust, and a still very traditional culture in certain aspects. I think that when you enter a market like that, your strategy must be wedge shaped. In our case, the tip of the wedge was making people consider whether they should give a part of their resources to help others. The wedge widened with the introduction of an effectiveness mindset and spatial impartiality (as referred to humans): two huge asks already. We feltâI think rightlyâthat introducing the expansion of the moral circle to include non-human animals was just too much at that stage.
However, we are gradually introducing cause areas beyond global health and poverty. @Andres Jimenez Zorrilla đ¸ nudged us to start offering an animal welfare option in 2021 and this is the progression so far.
The figures are small compared to GHP, but the trend is significant. All this is to say that having multiple cause areas was not an âifâ but a âwhenâ decision.
As for the book, I hope you wonât mind my self-quoting from the announcement đ:
The truth is Iâve written the book I realized I wanted to write.
Back in 2018, discovering that I could help thousands of people and save lives at little personal cost was a forceful intellectual and moral shock, as well as a happy turning point in my life. It seems obvious in retrospect, and itâs not something that keeps people busy at the expanding frontiers of EA. However, out in the world, it is a powerful idea that millions of people should hear. If itâs well explained, it can change the minds and behaviors of a certain fraction, resulting in an extraordinary impact. I see my book as a modest contribution to that project, focused on the currently neglected Spanish-speaking world.
Many books try to do too much. They gain pages and lose strength. I decided to focus on a single idea (âYou have the power to save livesâ), explain why it is true and meaningful, and remove anything that did not help to make the case.
Thanks for the question, Pablo.
Beginning with Ayuda Efectiva, when we launched we had to decide how to approach what I would call a tough market: not much of a giving culture, low trust, and a still very traditional culture in certain aspects. I think that when you enter a market like that, your strategy must be wedge shaped. In our case, the tip of the wedge was making people consider whether they should give a part of their resources to help others. The wedge widened with the introduction of an effectiveness mindset and spatial impartiality (as referred to humans): two huge asks already. We feltâI think rightlyâthat introducing the expansion of the moral circle to include non-human animals was just too much at that stage.
However, we are gradually introducing cause areas beyond global health and poverty. @Andres Jimenez Zorrilla đ¸ nudged us to start offering an animal welfare option in 2021 and this is the progression so far.
The figures are small compared to GHP, but the trend is significant. All this is to say that having multiple cause areas was not an âifâ but a âwhenâ decision.
As for the book, I hope you wonât mind my self-quoting from the announcement đ: