This seems like it could potentially one day become the greatest thing to which Open Philanthropy, Good Ventures and—by extension—EA ever contribute. Thank you!
To others in EA who may understandably be inquisitive about such a bold claim:
Before anyone asks, “What if EA is one day responsible for ending factory farming or unambiguously reducing existential risk to some historic degree? Wouldn’t that be even greater?”
Yes, those or some of the other highest ambitions among effective altruists might be greater. Yet there’s so much less reason to be confident EA can be that fulcrum for ending those worst of problems. Ending so much lead exposure in every country on Earth could be the most straightforward grand slam ever.
When I mention it could be the greatest, though, that’s not just between focus areas in EA. That’s so meta and complicated that the question of which focus area has the greatest potential to do good has still generally never been resolved. It’s sufficient to clarify this endeavour could have the potential to be the greatest outcome ever accomplished within the single focus area in EA of global health and development. It could exceed the value of all the money that has ever flown through EA to any charity Givewell has ever recommended.
I’ll also clarify I don’t mean “could” with that more specific claim in some euphemistic sense, of making some confident but vague claim to avoid accountability in making a forecast. I just mean “could” in the sense that it’s a premise worth considering. The fact there’s even a remote chance this could exceed everything achieved with EA to treat neglected tropical diseases is remarkable enough.
>It could exceed the value of all the money that has ever flowed through EA to any charity GiveWell has ever recommended.
LEAF and the Partnership for a Lead-Free Future wouldn’t have happened without GiveWell. They were the first major funder in the EA space to recommend grants for lead exposure, and much of the recent progress comes from those early investments, such as grants to Pure Earth and CGD. I also believe (though I’m less certain) that Charity Entrepreneurship’s recommendation of lead paint regulation and its incubation of LEEP were based largely on GiveWell’s research.
I know that wasn’t really what you were saying, but felt compelled to mention because I’ve heard lead exposure used as an example of what GiveWell gets wrong, when, in fact, GiveWell was earlier to lead exposure than almost anyone, and I’m grateful to former colleagues who put in a lot of hard work.
(For transparency: I was at GiveWell during this time and have since moved to Open Phil where I work on LEAF. I also think GiveWell made mistakes on lead exposure, many of them mine)
To everyone on the team making this happen:
This seems like it could potentially one day become the greatest thing to which Open Philanthropy, Good Ventures and—by extension—EA ever contribute. Thank you!
To others in EA who may understandably be inquisitive about such a bold claim:
Before anyone asks, “What if EA is one day responsible for ending factory farming or unambiguously reducing existential risk to some historic degree? Wouldn’t that be even greater?”
Yes, those or some of the other highest ambitions among effective altruists might be greater. Yet there’s so much less reason to be confident EA can be that fulcrum for ending those worst of problems. Ending so much lead exposure in every country on Earth could be the most straightforward grand slam ever.
When I mention it could be the greatest, though, that’s not just between focus areas in EA. That’s so meta and complicated that the question of which focus area has the greatest potential to do good has still generally never been resolved. It’s sufficient to clarify this endeavour could have the potential to be the greatest outcome ever accomplished within the single focus area in EA of global health and development. It could exceed the value of all the money that has ever flown through EA to any charity Givewell has ever recommended.
I’ll also clarify I don’t mean “could” with that more specific claim in some euphemistic sense, of making some confident but vague claim to avoid accountability in making a forecast. I just mean “could” in the sense that it’s a premise worth considering. The fact there’s even a remote chance this could exceed everything achieved with EA to treat neglected tropical diseases is remarkable enough.
Hi Evan, thank you for the kind words!
I wanted to clarify one point:
>It could exceed the value of all the money that has ever flowed through EA to any charity GiveWell has ever recommended.
LEAF and the Partnership for a Lead-Free Future wouldn’t have happened without GiveWell. They were the first major funder in the EA space to recommend grants for lead exposure, and much of the recent progress comes from those early investments, such as grants to Pure Earth and CGD. I also believe (though I’m less certain) that Charity Entrepreneurship’s recommendation of lead paint regulation and its incubation of LEEP were based largely on GiveWell’s research.
I know that wasn’t really what you were saying, but felt compelled to mention because I’ve heard lead exposure used as an example of what GiveWell gets wrong, when, in fact, GiveWell was earlier to lead exposure than almost anyone, and I’m grateful to former colleagues who put in a lot of hard work.
(For transparency: I was at GiveWell during this time and have since moved to Open Phil where I work on LEAF. I also think GiveWell made mistakes on lead exposure, many of them mine)