Interesting post! It sounds like you are doing good, and you also seem to admit that with other interventions you could do more good, according to available data. You are unsure how the values compare due to lack of meaningful measurable quantities on your current intervention. Do I have that correct?
If you want to gain insight into the matter, I would recommend reading into Scout mindset and rationality.
To put it bluntly: which sensory experience, if any, would convince you that your current intervention is not the best use of your time and effort?
EDIT: I see I am getting negative points. I guess I am appearing rude, condescending or antisocial. Not my intention, but my culture and personality make this an easy pitfall for me.
I truly do recognize the friction that OP describes and merely wanted to offer tools that helped me. What we want in life and how we change the world is not an optimization problem but a complex ethical choice. Depending on your preferences, optimization may then be applied within your philosophical direction.
Can someone please comment and/or confirm my guess? then I will delete this.
What I mean by the question is: you currently seem convinced that your current intervention, the 240project, is the best use of your time and effort. Is there any evidence that would convince you that you would do better to do something else or is that impossible? Is this a matter of faith or are you willing to update your beliefs with evidence or arguments? If so, what could you imagine that would change your mind?
I don’t know what you mean by the Victorian rationalist stuff. Is it just a feeling of aversion to rational arguments when they feel opposed to compassion or do you think EA might be making a similar mistake? How would we avoid doing that?
I found this article on caring and multiplying this morning and I think it is a nice addition to what Isaac Dunn has been saying here. It shows how to use feelings and where they fail.