Looking to advance businesses with charities in the vast majority shareholder position. Check out my TEDx talk for why I believe Profit for Good businesses could be a profound force for good in the world.
Brad Westđ¸
Karma: 1,908
I think the sort of world that could be achieved by the massive funding of effective charities is a rather inspiring vision. Natalie Cargill, Longview Philanthropyâs CEO, lays out a rather amazing set of outcomes that could be achieved in her TED Talk.
I think that a realistic method of achieving these levels of funding are Profit for Good businesses, as I lay out in my TEDx Talk. I think it is realistic because most people donât want to give something up to fund charities -as donation would require- but if they could help solve world problems by buying products or services they want or need of similar quality at the same price, they would.
I find it a bit surprising that your point is so well-taken and has met no disagreement so far, though I am inclined to agree with it.
Another way of framing âorgs that bring talent into the EA/âimpact-focused charity worldâ is orgs whose hiring is less focused on value alignment, insofar as involvement in the movement corresponds with EA value alignment. One might be concerned that a less aligned hire might do well on metrics that can be easily ascertained or credited by oneâs immediate employer, but ignore other opportunities or considerations regarding impact because he/âshe is narrowly concerned about legible job performance and personal career capital. They could go on, in this view, to use the career capital developed and displace more aligned individuals. If funding is the larger constraint for impactful work than labor willing to work for pay, âre-usingâ people in the community may make sense because the impact premium from value-alignment is worth the marginal delta from a seemingly superior resume.
Of course, another view is that hiring someone into an EA org can create buy-in and âconvertâ someone into the community, or allow them to discover a community they already agree with.
Something that just gives me pause regarding giving too much credit for bringing in additional talent is that -regarding lots of kinds of talent- there is a lot of EA talent chasing limited paid opportunities. Expanding the labor pool for some areas is probably much less important because funding is more the limiting factor.
I agree with your post overall and think that EA can be very pedantic, professorial, and overly averse to persuasion. I am very glad that you wrote this post and believe that EAs should credit more the importance of persuasion (and probably be more susceptible to positive persuasion as against criticism).
However, the title of your post suggested that the scout mindset is valuable only as a servant of persuasion. I think that it is important to note that scout mindset has other valuable applications.
On the subject of redirecting streams of money from less impactful causes to EA causes, I feel I need to beat my drum regarding the potential of Profit for Good businesses (businesses with charities in all or almost all of the shareholder position). In such cases, to the extent EA PFGs profits displace those of normal businesses, funds are diverted from the average shareholder to an effective charity.
So when a business like Humanitix (PFG helping projects in the developing world, $4mil AUD to The Life You Can Save) displaces the marketshare of Ticketmaster, funds are diverted not from charities, but from the funds of the businessâs competitors. This method of diversion seems less difficult because the operative actors (consumers, employees, business partners) are not deciding between a strong non-EA charity often optimized for warm fuzzies and marketing, but rather choosing between products with similar value propositions, but where engaging with oneâin addition to the other value propositionâimplies helping fight malaria or something instead of enriching a random investor.
If youâre interested in learning more about Profit for Good, here is a reading list on the subject.
Perhaps the most compelling reason for independent donors to contribute is that organizations like OP may have methodologies and assumptions that result in important opportunities being missed. Independent donors likely have a different set of methodologies and assumptions â as well as ideas that they are exposed to- that enable them to spot and support high-impact opportunities that OP overlooks or undervalues due to its particular perspectives, biases, or just lack of awareness.
Given the vast landscape of potential research areas, decisions, even by large institutions, about which causes to investigate are often made using rough back-of-the-envelope calculations. And given the importance of finality and focus, promising ideas and/âor cause areas can be rather cavalierly dismissed. Even if these calculations are approximately correct, categorically including or excluding entire areas means that promising interventions not typical of a category may be missed. Independent funders would not necessarily be burdened by having removed areas from consideration (although this certainly trades off with OPâs ability to zoom in and explore the areas that they positively categorized more fully).
By bringing diverse viewpoints to the table, independent donors can fund innovative projects that might otherwise be overlooked, enriching the philanthropic landscape beyond what a single major funder can achieve.
It seems to me that the proof is in the pudding. The content can be evaluated on what it brings to the discourse and the tools used in producing it are only relevant insofar as these tools result in undesirable content. Rather than questioning whether the post was written by generative AI, I would give feedback as to what aspects of the content you are criticizing.
You seem to indicate that one who is âmaximizingâ for some value, such as the well-being of moral patients across spacetime would lead to, or tend to lead to, poor mental health. I can understand how one might think this for a ânaĂŻve maximizationâ, where one depletes oneself by giving of oneself, in terms of ones effort, time, and resources, at a rate that either makes one burnout, or barely able to function. But this is like suggesting if you want to get the most out of a car, you should drive it as frequently and relentlessly, without providing the vehicle needed upkeep and repairs.
But one who does not incorporate oneâs own needs, including mental health needs, into oneâs determination of how to maximize for a value is not operating optimally as a maximizer. I will note that there have been others who have indicated that when they view the satisfaction of their own needs or desires as primarily instrumental, rather than terminal goals, that this somewhat diminishes them. In my personal experience, I strive to âmaximizeâ- I want to live my life in a way that best calculated toward reducing suffering and increasing flourishing of conscious beings- but I recognize that taking care of my health is part of how to do so.
I would be curious if other âmaximizersâ would say that they are capable of integrating their own health into their decisions such that they can maintain adequate health.
Just when I have seen efforts to improve community relations it has typically been in the âCommunity Healthâ context relating to when people have had complaints about people in the community or other conflicts. I havenât seen as much concerted effort in connecting people working on different EA projects that might add value to each other.
A lot of what I have seen regarding âEA Community teamsâ seems to be be about managing conflicts between different individuals.
It would be interesting to see an organization or individual that was explicitly an expert in knowing different individuals and organizations and the projects that they are working on and could potentially connect people who might be able to add value to each otherâs projects. It strikes me that there are a lot of opportunities for collaboration but not as much organization around mapping out the EA space on a more granular level.
Joey, thanks for this thought-provoking piece on addressing talent bottlenecks with on-ramps, especially through programs like Founding to Give. You rightly highlight that funding is be a limiting factor for scaling impactful initiatives. While Ambitious Impactâs program addresses this by encouraging individuals to commit a portion of their earnings to philanthropy, I believe there is still significant untapped potential.
Profit for Good (PFG) businessesâcompanies that direct their profits to charitable causesâoffer a way to overcome this funding bottleneck. PFGs can effectively compete in for-profit markets by capitalizing on a subtle yet powerful advantage: the preference of economic actors (such as consumers, employees, and business collaborators) for supporting charitable outcomes over simply enriching random shareholders. When people are given a choice between two equivalent options, they often favor the one that directs profits toward causes they care aboutâlike saving kids from malariaârather than increasing the wealth of investors. Even a modest preference for such socially beneficial outcomes can lead to advantages in consumer loyalty, attracting top talent, and forming strategic partnerships.
By not fully exploring how to harness this as a tool and explore the contexts where it could offer the most significant advantages, I think thereâs money being left on the table. PFGs could strategically use this natural inclination to gain competitive advantages without compromising business performance. Iâm curious if Ambitious Impact has considered integrating this perspective into their programs, as it could align well with the goal of channeling more resources toward effective causes.
I guess I would revise my comment to be more modest in its proposition.
One part of what the OP is saying is that increased funding for animal welfare by EA would result in greater pushback against EA in general for putting resources toward something it considers strange or weird or otherwise contrary to their values.
Iâm saying that the effect of this âEA is weird for prioritizing Animal Welfareâ would probably be less than the effect of the better messaging, communication, and marketing, that the money would enable. So the net effect of more money in animal welfare (assuming prudent communications and marketing spend in the deployment) would be better public perception of EA rather than worse.
Youâre right that the underlying perceptions and views are unlikely to be adequately addressed even if all the $200 mil was going to marketing, but with a prudent portion of it going there, I would anticipate the net effect on public perception of EA to be positive rather than negative.
The challenges youâve identified regarding the shift from global health to animal welfareâsuch as resistance, politicization, and cultural insensitivityâlargely stem from insufficient communication, which can be significantly improved with more funding. By investing in effective messaging strategies, we can make animal welfare interventions more relatable and acceptable to the broader public, thereby increasing their popularity and impact. Moreover, the Effective Altruism community risks reputational damage by advocating for animal welfare without adequately investing in public communication; without a strong messaging system, we may alienate potential supporters and undermine our efforts. Therefore, allocating more resources to both animal welfare initiatives and their communication is crucialânot only to address these concerns but also to enhance the movementâs credibility and ensure our interventions are both effective and well-received.
The numbers are there to demonstrate the point that if you have a very positive effect from AGI and a large amount of future generations, there is the potential for a divergence of choices depending on whether youâre accounting for future lives.
You can plug in the numbers that you would like⌠The point is not to advance these specific probabilities.
Hi Ian,
In the case of our current agent, he receives 45% of the annualized premiums as a commission. If he gets high enough sales, with where he currently works, his commission percentage of annualized premiums could go as high as 80%. We also are open to working with other independent insurance agents who get commissions percentages that are a larger portion of annualized premiums than that.
But even at the current rate, a purchase can translate into a rather significant donation, in the hundreds, or even thousands of dollars, without costing the buyer anything more for the same policy.
Regarding auditing/âverification intend to give the person who bought the policy documentation showing the donation corresponding with their purchase of insurance. We also intend to periodically indicate how much in donations has been made through all of our programs to charity recipients.
We would be open to further auditing, of course, as would be consistent with the privacy rights of buyers.
SupÂport EffecÂtive CharÂiÂties for Free When You Buy Life InÂsurance â Hereâs How (ComÂmisÂsions for a Cause)
On the question of costs, these could be reduced dramatically if there were a central, updated hub that informed people about opportunities, ideally linked from the EA Forum or otherwise made conspicuously available to EAs or those aligned with similar cause areas. I vaguely recall efforts like this in the past, but having an easily accessible and conspicuous organization of opportunities is critical to reducing search costs. Itâs somewhat surprising that something like this hasnât already been fully implemented and maintained, given the significant reduction in effort and resources it would imply.
Thanks for thinking of us @david_reinstein!
Right now, weâre focused on gathering information about Profit for Good businesses. Down the line, weâre definitely interested in compiling a guide of individuals or businesses that might offer favorable terms to Profit for Good enterprises, especially those benefiting effective charities. However, at the moment, we donât have the capacity to work on compiling and developing this list.
Yes, both talks are on the same concept of Profit for Good.
I donât think either makes direct reference to the Profit for Good Initiative.
The issue with support roles is that itâs often difficult to assess when someone in that position truly makes a counterfactual difference. These roles can be essential but not always obviously irreplaceable. In contrast, itâs much easier to argue that without the initiator or visionary, the program might never have succeeded in the first place (or at least might have been delayed significantly). Similarly, funders who provide critical resourcesâespecially when alternative funding isnât availableâmay also be in a position where their absence would mean failure.
This perspective challenges a more egalitarian view of credit distribution. It suggests that while support roles are crucial, itâs often the key figuresâinitiators, visionaries, and fundersâwho are more irreplaceable, and thus more deserving of disproportionate recognition. This may be controversial, but it reflects the reality that some contributions, particularly at the outset, might make all the difference in whether a project can succeed at all.
I donât think people are saying putting time and or money to charities that address the poor in rich countries is not helping people, but merely that you could help more poor people in poor countries with the same resources. Thus, if we are saying that we are considering the interests of the unfortunate in poor and rich countries equally, we would want to commit our limited resources to the developing world.
I think a lot of times EAs are assuming a given set of resources that they have to commit to doing good. With that assumption, the counterfactual to the food pantry is the most cost effective charity. The âwarm fuzzy/âutilonâ dichotomy that you deride here actually supports your notion that the food pantry could compete with the doorâs luxury consumption instead. This is because warm fuzzies (the donorâs psychic benefit derived from giving) could potentially be a substitute for the consumption of luxury goods (going out to eat, etc.).
So, the concept of the fuzzies (albeit maybe with language you find offensive) actually supports your notion that, within individual donation decisions, helping locally does not always compete with effective giving.