But what about the people who don’t respond? Ideally you should wait a few days and then follow-up.
...
I actually only followed up with people who replied to me
I’m confused by this—should I follow up with people who I email and who don’t respond, or not?
Again, the point of this is to make genuine connections and re-connections, not just to use your friends as a means to an end of fundraising.
If this whole “fundraising” thing is just a clever ruse to get EA people to reconnect with their extended network of friends, I heartily approve!
I’m choosy about which books you read
I’m hoping this is a typo
Wow, that’s amazing! It exceeded my expectations by a factor of around 5.
I don’t have much to show for my own fundraiser, given that I haven’t sent any emails at all yet. I’m really shy about asking people for things. Do you think that future fundraising projects could benefit from some one-on-one time between novice and experienced fundraisers to make sure that people are doing it right? (And not just setting up a fundraiser and letting it gather dust like I did).
Also, do you think people would grow weary if they get these fundraising emails year after year, or from multiple people in their extended network? I really don’t want to put people off by being too pushy, and I’m curious whether this is a card you can only play once.
Note that doing this is completely legal
Would it still be completely legal if there was a more automatic and markety way of organizing this, such as certificates of impact? At what point does a system of exchange become too much like money and hence taxable?
Can someone explain the game theoretics of donation matching in a couple of paragraphs? In particular, if I’m a savvy donor should I completely ignore the concept altogether, or should I only donate if it’s matched with somebody?
Beeminder got me exercising. I recommend it if you have a tendency to put things off.
I agree. Thanks for clarifying.
I’m not much of a blogger, but I’ll give it a go.
The original post was talking about factory farmed chickens, and whether we can reduce their suffering by reducing their population. I don’t think the natural lifespan comes into it—however much we reduce the population of farmed chickens by convincing people not to eat them, we’re not expecting any of the chickens under consideration to live a full and happy life.
It’s hard to frame this as a trolley problem though—we’re not actually comparing human deaths to chicken deaths. The trolley would have to kill 1 human along one path and create 12,000 farmed chickens along the other path.
I’ve taken the liberty of adding this project idea to .impact. Feel free to improve it!
https://impact.hackpad.com/Skills-Teaching-Ladder-ejESyTh9DN9
I was having a look at the total budgets for various EA orgs to see what the overall balance looks like:
Meta (3.8%)
GW 2.7%
ACE 0.2%
80K 0.2%
GWWC 0.2%
LYCS 0.5%
Poverty (79.6%)
AMF 7.6%
GD 54.9%
SCI 9.8%
DtW 7.3%
Animal (11.2%)
AE 0.9%
THL 1.5%
MFA 8.8%
xrisk (5.4%)
MIRI 5.4%
I was unable to find figures for FHI, FLI, CSER, GCRI or CFAR so the meta and xrisk portions are going to be larger than this. Also note that, along with usual caveats, these figures are probably wrong as I wasn’t putting much care into them. Let me know if I should tidy this up a bit and write a post on it or whether the whole exercise is a waste of time.
Thanks for the detailed reply!
If you value animals according to their brain mass, the leafleting spreadsheet and this and this suggest:
30 gram years per dollar for veg leafleting, with wide error bars
20 gram years per dollar for AMF
So it sounds competitive, and that’s using a pretty human-biased utility function.
I’m relaunching local EA meetups in Toronto, yay!
These are good points.
The generous folks at Charity Science seem hesitant to match some of my donations. Anyone else having this problem? Or know what’s going on?
http://christmas.causevox.com/giles