Dave Cortright 🔸

• Dave Cortright 🔸 23 Jan 2026 3:19 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Cel­e­brat­ing wins — dis­cus­sion thread

  Good.store showed the Profit for Good model works (100% of profits go to charity). They continued to grow, expanding from coffee, socks, and soap into tea, undies, and cleaning products. The big milestone in 2025: they opened the maternal health center in Sierra Leone.
  
  I bring it up because I think anyone who cares about being compassionate and effective (you 😇) should consider voting for maternal health in Africa over contributing to the profits of large international conglomerates.

• Dave Cortright 🔸 26 Dec 2025 20:11 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Anton’s comment on: 3 doubts about veganism

  I was responding to the No space for sinners section above, where the author claims the opposite.
  

• Dave Cortright 🔸 28 Nov 2025 21:31 UTC

  1 point

  1 ∶ 2

  on: 3 doubts about veganism

  Is Barack Obama black? Technically, no; he is bi-racial. But he identifies as black, and most people—when asked—would say he is black (Wikipedia concurs).

  I think veganism should be treated the same way. You don’t have to be 100% perfect for you or others to consider you vegan.

  Being pedantic about definitions does not help reduce suffering, IMO.

• Dave Cortright 🔸 25 Nov 2025 16:21 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Dona­tion Elec­tion Dis­cus­sion Thread

  They all touch on mental health interventions in some way.

• Dave Cortright 🔸 18 Oct 2025 19:05 UTC

  5 points

  5 ∶ 0

  on: What If EA Ac­tu­ally Picked One Goal?

  Maybe your belief is that if enough people “at the top” of EA agree to this, they can influence a majority of the EA community to follow. My sense is that EAs are more independent freethinkers than most other groups, so I don’t think this scenario is likely.

  Given that, what you’re proposing is essentially relabeling the current set of “EAs who care about animal welfare” to “EA”. A few EAs who aren’t already in this camp might follow you over, but on the whole I strongly suspect this would alienate everyone else who doesn’t sign up for this worldview, and it would just fracture the community.

• Dave Cortright 🔸 16 Oct 2025 18:00 UTC

  2 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: Thoughts on great­non­prof­its.org?

  I’m a fan of “wisdom of crowds”. But I suspect—at least for the top-rated ones—there has been coordinated ballot box stuffing by staff and supporters. And like many user reviews online, it tends toward bimodal of “great” or “awful”. Most people don’t make the effort to write “it was ok” reviews.

  I feel there’s too much noise and not enough signal to make it a worthwhile source.

Com­mu­nity-based wildlife con­ser­va­tion de­serves more at­ten­tion in EA

• Dave Cortright 🔸 16 Sep 2025 15:41 UTC

  0 points

  0 ∶ 1

  on: DaveC’s Shortform

  EoL Competition, EOL in the software world means “End of Life”. I’d recommend choosing a different acronym. LongTermism could be abbreviated LT, so EoLT or Thoughts on Longtermism, TLT. (LTE is already taken 😇)

• Dave Cortright 🔸 8 Sep 2025 19:32 UTC

  2 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: How big a deal is donat­ing 10% of your in­come re­ally? A perspective

  For me, the foundational question is “How much is enough?” How much do I need to live a reasonably healthy, happy life? Kahneman & Deaton (2010) found this to be $75,000, which would be about $100k in 2025. I use this as my baseline (adjusted for the cost of living in my area). Maybe this will help others contextualize.

• Dave Cortright 🔸 26 Aug 2025 15:38 UTC

  3 points

  3 ∶ 11

  on: You’re Enough

  I encourage everyone to lower their achievement bar all the way down to “minimize harm”. There is no rational reason to beat yourself up for not reaching some arbitrary goalpost, even if it is one that you set for yourself and was arguably achievable. Life happens, and new circumstances and data can easily shift things.

  For example, if you were hit by a bus and in the ICU recovering, no one would expect you to be productive. Why is it any different for milder versions? Have the flu or a cold? Didn’t sleep well last night? Completely exhausted and burnt out?

  “Should” is the most insidious word we use. “I should be able to achieve more or give more or be better”. Love and accept yourself where you are. Then, if you want to make step towards improvement, do so. But keep them small and don’t compare against others or hypotheticals. The only comparison that matters is against yourself.

A prac­ti­cal guide to suici­dal ideation

• Dave Cortright 🔸 11 Aug 2025 15:17 UTC

  0 points

  0 ∶ 1

  in reply to: Indrek Kivirik’s comment on: Al­co­hol is so bad for so­ciety that you should prob­a­bly stop drinking

  I agree it is a factor, but it is naïve to think that is the only explanation.

• Dave Cortright 🔸 7 Aug 2025 9:36 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 3

  on: Al­co­hol is so bad for so­ciety that you should prob­a­bly stop drinking

  Alcohol is indeed a Class 1 carcinogen. As the WHO says bluntly, “No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health.”

  But it is also one of the nine factors in Blue Zones—longevity outlier populations.

  So, how to explain the contraction? The power of community and relationships:

  The positive effects of consistent, strong, and healthy relationships are so much more powerful than other factors, they become essentially rounding errors in the equation.

  I overall agree that alcohol is a net negative to society. But if it is ingested in moderation as part of social bonding rituals like evening meals together or spiritual services, the positive effects of these rituals on our health—especially bolstering our amazing immune systems that constantly repair mild to moderate damage in our bodies—more than make up for the negatives of the alcohol.

• Dave Cortright 🔸 1 Aug 2025 16:00 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: On the Mo­ral Pa­tiency of Non-Sen­tient Be­ings (Part 2)

  In the infinite game there is no win condition

  The winning condition is that the game is still ongoing. As long as the infinite game is in progress, it is in the winning state.

• Dave Cortright 🔸 25 Jul 2025 16:34 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: From Google to co-found­ing a global health char­ity: Mid-ca­reer tran­si­tions with Mar­tyn James

  I recommend updating the title to something like “From Google to global health NGO”.

  At first glance, I thought this said “Google is founding a new global health charity.”

• Dave Cortright 🔸 25 Jul 2025 16:31 UTC

  3 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: De­bate: Are enough EAs earn­ing to give?

  To scale solutions, we need more money than people, since money can not only deploy solutions but also hire more people

• Dave Cortright 🔸 25 Jul 2025 15:35 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Why?’s comment on: Grap­pling with an Un­com­fortable Trade-off: Hu­man Lives vs. An­i­mal Suffering

  Well, it’s unfortunate, but the fundamental goal of Effective Altruism is rational investment, and that means, among other things, not investing based on emotions.

  This is wrong; it’s a black-or-white logical fallacy. Emotions are an important channel of data. Not factoring them into calculations leads to false conclusions. Check out bilateral amygdala damage or frontotemporal dementia.

  EA discourages emotion-only or emotion-overweighted decision-making. However, if emotion were not a part of EA, we would simply give every dollar to bednets in Africa and ignore every other cause.

  Maybe I’m misreading your argument, but you seem to say there are legitimate cases to be made for 100% investment in humans, at the expense of complete obliteration of the remainder of the animal kingdom. The whole ecosystem we rely on for survival would collapse.
  
  I might agree with you that the planet would be better off long term if we devoted 100% to animals and, conversely, obliterated all the people. There are (at least) two things wrong with this other extreme scenario, though:

  1. It values human flourishing at zero, which is antithetical to EA

  2. We might be the only higher consciousness in the Galaxy, or even the Universe, with a non-zero risk of ours being the only one that arises. It would be a massive loss to have the next googol years play out unaware.

• Dave Cortright 🔸 24 Jul 2025 15:56 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: tootlife’s comment on: Grap­pling with an Un­com­fortable Trade-off: Hu­man Lives vs. An­i­mal Suffering

  Telling people what they should do is antithetical to respect and agency and human flourishing. Making moral arguments is one thing, but authoritarianism crosses the line. IMHO.

• Dave Cortright 🔸 24 Jul 2025 4:08 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 1

  on: Grap­pling with an Un­com­fortable Trade-off: Hu­man Lives vs. An­i­mal Suffering

  The “highest-lowest” game mechanic is a valuable lens when thinking about balancing investments. It’s pretty clear the extremes are wrong (100% people, 0% animals, or the inverse). That means there is some middle ground that makes sense.

  I trust the wisdom of the crowd. Some are drawn to human welfare, others to animal welfare. Some to both. The more we educate everyone on the issues and give them the agency to make their own decisions on where to invest resources, the more likely we are to come to a reasonable balance point.

We need EA peo­ple work­ing for non-EA orgs