Hiya! I work on data stuff at CEA. I used to be the content lead on the EA Global team at CEA, and before that I did economic consulting. Here’s an old website I might update at some point.
Think I’m making a mistake? Want to give me feedback? Here’s my admonymous. You can also give feedback for me directly to my manager, JP Addison.
I often find myself thinking about this post, and I now often use the phrases “morality as taxes” and “wholeheartedness”. Thank you for writing it :)
Nice. I’d find this super interesting!
(A nitpick responding to just one point and not the whole post)
I feel a bit wary of using SWP as your default example here because this comment from @Aaron Boddy🔸 makes me think that SWP doesn’t have a ton of room for rapidly deploying more funding right now—I’d expect further donations to have lower marginal ROI than directly buying more stunners which I /expect/ is what you’re assuming in the counterfactual (which is not a dig at SWP, seems fine for them to use extra donations for lower marginal ROI things if their top priority tickets are comfortably funded!)
A broader point: I’d expect the marginal ROI of additional funding in the invertebrate welfare space to diminish much faster than the marginal ROI of AMF donations.
I am glad you’ve come to a decision here, even though it sounds like a painful one! I really appreciated being able to read this, thank you for sharing!
I think animal welfare work is more likely to be recommended by my all-things-considered normative views than what I’ve been doing, though I’m not confident that cluelessness doesn’t undermine this, too.
@JesseClifton I’d be really curious to hear your thoughts on why animal welfare work seems better under your normative beliefs, if you’re open to sharing. (Not sharing my views because I don’t want to anchor you.) Someone I’m close to is trying to figure out what they believe about cluelessness, and I thought they might benefit from hearing someone else think through this!
This is such good news!! I’m so relieved, even if there will still be a fight in the near future.
I found this ep interesting and inspiring @Cameron Meyer Shorb 🔸, thanks for doing it :) Like Luisa, I hadn’t heard the idea re: selective reforestation before, and found it super interesting.
This is so heart-warming! Thanks for sharing Jamie!
I think more people should consider leaving more (endorsed) short, nice comments on the Forum + LW when they like a post, especially for newer authors or when someone is posting something “brave” / a bit risky. It’s just so cheap to build this habit and I continue to think that sincere gratitude is underrated in ~all online spaces. I like that @Ben_West🔸 does this frequently :)
Random, I realized I misread your comment the first time around — yeah I do think the above consideration (maybe alumni have unusual local knowledge on small CB projects that influence them) is interesting pushback. Thanks!
Thinking about it again, I’m weakly positive about people in general taking advantage of “local knowledge” when donating, and people knowing which CB efforts helped them is a good example of ‘local knowledge’ effects.
(I do still think the second consideration holds — bigger funders have a much better birds eye perspective on the meta ecosystem as a whole than the average EA, even if they have worse local knowledge.)
I love this post, thanks for writing it! :) This line particularly stood out to me: “A job is just a platform for impact.” So good!
I’m so sorry to hear about your difficult life circumstances last year! I know we don’t know each other personally, but I’ve often enjoyed your comments over the years.
If we are giving what we can (not in the capitalized sense), sometimes we aren’t in a position to give as much and have to radically accept that.
I liked this framing! I feel tempted to add something like, “this is a marathon not a race” / “it’s ok to take a break”.
Thanks Aaron! I think I’m now a bit confused what a prospective funder would be funding.
Is it something like, the volunteer group would run a hiring round (managed by anyone in particular?) for a part-time leader (maybe someone in the group?), but no one specifically has raised their hand for this? And then perhaps that person could deploy some of the $15k to hire a research associate if they’d like?
I respect that this is an early stage idea y’all are just trying to get started / don’t have all the details figured out yet, just trying to understand (mostly for the sake of any prospective funders) who they would be betting on etc. :)
Also: I’m so excited someone is trying to take a crack at this issue. Suffering caused by screwworms does seem immense. I feel a bit unsure on the specifics of how this project will evolve, but I’m rooting for you! <3
The “show up” spirit feels emblematic of a quality I love about EAs. It reminds me of this quote I like: “Often, the important things are accomplished not by those best suited to do them, or by those who ought to be responsible for doing them, but by whoever actually shows up.”
Thank you for sharing the update! :)
Funding/time:
Our volunteer team members have other commitments and can only dedicate ~5 hours per week to this project. To make significant progress, we need people working full-time, which requires funding.
Proposed solution:
$15,000 for a part-time program director, and a research associate. With the capacity to expand to 100k for a full-time team
If you are an individual donor interested in funding us, drop us a message!
Do you have a prospective director in mind, and how many hours / for how long would they work? Same question for your research associate. $15k to cover 2 part time roles seems quite low to me, especially since this would have to also include healthcare, taxes, etc. that an employer wouldn’t pay for!
I’m also generally curious who has been leading this project, if anyone in particular! :)
<3 This is so lovely @Allan_Saldanha! I think it is such a lovely and remarkable thing about our community that so many people have been quietly living their lives and just giving their 10, 20, 40, 75(!) percent to causes they care about, some now over the course of 10+ years. “Generous and thoughtful giving is normal here” continues to be one of my favorite facts about EAs :’)
Thanks for doing this AMA!
Kind of curious if you looked into this—obviously no pressure to share before you’re ready though, I was just scrolling through some old comments :) Good luck on your work!
Oh! Well I’m sorry for spreading misinformation :) Thanks for the correction!
Quick pushback: overhead is a part of the costs needed to make this product (good management is needed to keep systems running)[1] and ignoring that leads to weird conclusions.
e.g. I think under some versions of your view, if donor A pitches in $50k for a stunner, and then donor B pitches in last $5k, you give donor B all the credit. (Obligatory Nuno ref.) I might be misunderstanding you, apologies if so.
There’s a nearby thing about how “not all overhead costs are necessary program costs” or something, and I probably buy that multiplying by [total costs] / [program specific costs] might not be the right way to apportion overhead.
Good luck with fundraising! :)
One nit: SWP’s cost effectiveness numbers don’t seem to include any operational overhead in the denominator (see the CEA, where you’re only counting the cost of the stunners).
I understand you’ve fundraised for overhead separately, but IMO it should be best practice to include overhead costs in your denominator — obviously someone would have to cover those costs! Thought came from this thread with Vasco.
I’d be curious for the overhead inclusive costs if that was quick — maybe as a proxy, you can multiply by [total org costs] / [non operational costs]? :)
This is so great, congratulations team!! <3
One thing this makes me curious about: how good is the existing evidence base on electric stunning is better for the welfare of the shrimp, and how much better is stunning? I didn’t realize SWP was thinking of using the corporate campaign playbook to scale up stunning, so it makes me curious how robustly good this intervention is, and I couldn’t quickly figure this out from the Forum / website. @Aaron Boddy🔸 is there a public thing I can read by any chance? No pressure!
FWIW, “how good is stunning for welfare” is the main question I have about the impact of HSI right now (whereas other crucial considerations like “how many shrimp do you target”, “will farmers use the stunners”, “how should we value shrimp / their expected sentience” all feel clearer to me).