Some related idea might add value, but I’m quite skeptical of this idea. Almost all EAs would generally rather donate to an organization than to an “EA emergency fund,” since the best opportunities to do good prima facie do not include giving money to other EAs (except in cases more like giving someone a grant, but we already have funds set up for grantmaking).
Also:
Note that both linked essays discuss a fund that only offers support to contributors. I no longer think that is desirable
This seems to contradict “donors can only recoup half of what they originally donated.”
Finally, if something like this fund existed, it wouldn’t make sense for the default way to contribute to be by donating to GiveWell “through the fund” — it would be more efficient to separate donations to organizations from donations to this fund.
That said, there may be efficiency gains from a system that helped donors maintain financial security while donating more (as you and Alicorn noted on LessWrong).
There might be several ways of thinking about the efficiency gain:
It could allow people to skate by with lower personal emergency funds, thus donate slightly more, since they could rely on EA insurance in a pinch.
The idea that you could “take back” donations if you fell on hard times might encourage many people to give much more now rather than waiting and giving later. I suspect this is a bigger effect than #1… many people today are pursuing de facto patient philanthropy because they’d rather have the optionality of money and then donate later in life when their finances are on more of a set path. EA insurance could help giving now compete with the attractive optionality of giving later.
By giving people an extra layer of financial security, EA insurance might indirectly encourage people take on more high-risk ambitious projects generally.
Almost all EAs would generally rather donate to an organization than to an “EA emergency fund,” since the best opportunities to do good prima facie do not include giving money to other EAs (except in cases more like giving someone a grant, but we already have funds set up for grantmaking).
I think I disagree with one specific thing: we want people to take risks in their careers so that large amounts of “good” are created. But then how can we compensate those people taking risks that benefit others? I am therefore in favor of decoupling taking large charitable upside risky career moves with personal risk.
In other words:
In personal matters, you want to be conservative because 50 million do not make you 50 times happier than 1 million.
On altruistic matters, you should aim to be risky.
Some related idea might add value, but I’m quite skeptical of this idea. Almost all EAs would generally rather donate to an organization than to an “EA emergency fund,” since the best opportunities to do good prima facie do not include giving money to other EAs (except in cases more like giving someone a grant, but we already have funds set up for grantmaking).
Also:
This seems to contradict “donors can only recoup half of what they originally donated.”
Finally, if something like this fund existed, it wouldn’t make sense for the default way to contribute to be by donating to GiveWell “through the fund” — it would be more efficient to separate donations to organizations from donations to this fund.
That said, there may be efficiency gains from a system that helped donors maintain financial security while donating more (as you and Alicorn noted on LessWrong).
There might be several ways of thinking about the efficiency gain:
It could allow people to skate by with lower personal emergency funds, thus donate slightly more, since they could rely on EA insurance in a pinch.
The idea that you could “take back” donations if you fell on hard times might encourage many people to give much more now rather than waiting and giving later. I suspect this is a bigger effect than #1… many people today are pursuing de facto patient philanthropy because they’d rather have the optionality of money and then donate later in life when their finances are on more of a set path. EA insurance could help giving now compete with the attractive optionality of giving later.
By giving people an extra layer of financial security, EA insurance might indirectly encourage people take on more high-risk ambitious projects generally.
I think I disagree with one specific thing: we want people to take risks in their careers so that large amounts of “good” are created. But then how can we compensate those people taking risks that benefit others? I am therefore in favor of decoupling taking large charitable upside risky career moves with personal risk.
In other words:
In personal matters, you want to be conservative because 50 million do not make you 50 times happier than 1 million.
On altruistic matters, you should aim to be risky.
This fund could help bridge those different aims.