As Jackson points out, those willing to go the ‘high uncertainty/high upside’ route tend to favor far future or animal welfare causes. Even if we think these folks should consider more medium-term causes, comparing cost-effectiveness to GiveWell top charities may be inapposite.
It seems like there is support for hits-based policy interventions in general, and Open Phil has funded at least some of this.
The case for growth was based on historical success of pro-growth policy. Not only is this now less neglected, but much of the low-hanging fruit has been taken.
As Jackson points out, those willing to go the ‘high uncertainty/high upside’ route tend to favor far future or animal welfare causes. Even if we think these folks should consider more medium-term causes, comparing cost-effectiveness to GiveWell top charities may be inapposite.
It seems like there is support for hits-based policy interventions in general, and Open Phil has funded at least some of this.
The case for growth was based on historical success of pro-growth policy. Not only is this now less neglected, but much of the low-hanging fruit has been taken.