gogreatergood

Karma: 116

gogreatergood 11 Nov 2025 1:46 UTC
4 points
1 ∶ 0
on: The Protein Problem
I like your point that many people are not really working out and thus really just need the minimum-ish amount of protein in that case.
I am no longer veg for 2 reasons, in case my 2 cents means anything (tho maybe they are more personal to me than prevalent):
+ Processed food concerns (my specific examples):
-- Daily pea protein intake makes my stomach hurt… not sure if this is definitely related to processing or something else but chicken doesn’t do this to me. -- I have trouble getting enough protein from purely unprocessed vegan sources like organic tofu, and organic rice and beans, and peanut butter on wheat bread. I can only eat so much of these 3 things every single day, especially as I lift weights and don’t want just the minimum amount of protein. Are there other good unprocessed vegan sources of protein? EAG events and other events don’t give me that impression.… lots of pea protein fake meat, and sometimes full set ups with very little protein at all for an entire meal.
-- Products like Soylent that are not organic, have glyphosate, a known carcinogen, and possibly other chemicals. Soylent has readable levels of glyphosate in it, but some think it’s too much while others think it’s an okay amount. However I’d like to avoid carcinogens in any amount at least when it’s easy to.
+ Missing nutrients:
-- Why do so few vegans eat omega-3s from algae oil? Omega-3′s from flax etc need to be converted and it seems this doesn’t make the cut in what’s needed for many people, because it’s not the straight up DHA and EPA that the body best uses. “The trouble is that people vary dramatically in their abilities to convert ALA to DHA and EPA. So the only way to ensure that your body receives sufficient amounts of these latter two nutrients is to supplement.” Not getting straght up DHA and EPA, impairs long term brain function of at least some vegans. Vegans should supplement with very specifically, algae oil, such as what VivoLife and Dr. Fuhrman sell. (-- Some vegans don’t even supplement b12 which is more known). -- I can only wonder if there are additional nutrients that will come to light as time goes on, that vegans seem to be unaware of or careless about in their highlighting of animal suffering.

gogreatergood 17 Mar 2025 22:57 UTC
3 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Am I Missing Something, or Is EA? Thoughts from a Learner in Uganda
I was just arguing a few days ago on here that your very perspective is needed in EA: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/6FLvBaEwiiqf9JGEJ/history-of-diversity-efforts-and-trends-in-ea?commentId=Egczucx2c3uX4qEMo
Something I do like about EA is that while the main ideas that many hold do have value, as you say… there also are some people who find their own way in EA on whatever topic most interests them even if their ideas are NOT held closely by many. (For example, while I am really concerned about AI, 95% of my interest in EA is global poverty, and teaching others some EA basics alongside non-EA ideas… and I mostly just link up with people who have those specific interests.)
That said, EA would be way better off as a whole if more diversity was present, from the high-income country world and especially from the low-middle income country world.
Cheers and thanks for writing this !!!!

gogreatergood 17 Mar 2025 16:01 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Ian Turner’s comment on: History of diversity efforts and trends in EA
That’s a fair point except that I certainly did not say nor mean “the median beneficiary” should be within the conversation at EAG and EAG-type contexts. I said that orgs like GiveDirectly and Fistula Foundation could be contacted to see which outstanding people they are in contact with might be ideal to bring to EAGs.
The people I speak of, don’t even necessarily need to be be beneficiaries at all. They should just be, as I said, “people who grew up and/or currently live/work in these places.” They might indeed be beneficiaries who now also work with these orgs in some capacity, or maybe they are not beneficiaries at all. Such people who grow up in a place, generally have way better understanding, and even sometimes out of the box thinking, about problems and solutions, etc.
I have met a very few such people at EAGs, so they sometimes are there in numbers of like 1-3 per conference, they are fairly easy to find and I sometimes wonder if I’m the only one who seeks them out, and if I have met more of these people than anyone else, even though I don’t go to too many conferences overall. Personally I really enjoy speaking to them and have learned a lot from them. (But the fact that I think not too many people seem to care to find them and talk with them, makes me wonder if they themselves would find it worth it to visit an EAG in the first place from their own perspective.)
[edit 2 min after posting: “if you choose exceptional beneficiaries to represent the class of beneficiaries as a whole, that leads to a different set of problems.”—I’m not sure what you meant by this part. surely it seems better to me to have some representation than zero representation.]
Just ideas, thank you so much for commenting back with your thoughts !!

gogreatergood 10 Mar 2025 0:23 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: geoffrey’s comment on: History of diversity efforts and trends in EA
All makes sense Geoffery and glad it’s not just me who thinks about these things, especially on the 80k advice.
I agree that this list that Julia presents is very impressive and way better than what a lot might do, in some contexts. Your point is well taken and your initial comment was good too, I maybe could have read the meaning a little better so maybe it was me that boxed it in.
Thanks so much, these threads I am posting on here, are I think the first time I am having productive back and forths on the forum so that’s kinda cool :)

gogreatergood 9 Mar 2025 4:53 UTC
6 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: gogreatergood’s comment on: History of diversity efforts and trends in EA
To the 2 people who marked “disagree”, and anyone else, again I am looking for feedback on this, so please take a moment to explain why you disagree with this, if you dare :)

gogreatergood 9 Mar 2025 4:23 UTC
5 points
3 ∶ 2
in reply to: Larks’s comment on: History of diversity efforts and trends in EA
1. Are you arguing that EA is “above-the-curve” on DEI stuff? Or you agree with me that it is not, but you just think my evidence for the point is lacking?
2. Are you comparing my public school, after-school program, to a donkey sanctuary? And/or do you believe that aiming to make EA more accessible to the general public, and more diverse, is akin to supporting donkey sanctuaries?
  
  (on the other hand you have a point that my anecdote is not the best… as plenty of people in EA do like my ideas for broadening out EA to the general public… so it’s not like many people hate on me for this, although actually you seem to think this is a waste of time yourself?)
3. The 80k hours article you are pulling is simply detailing that one can make a difference in general and all the reasons why one should pursue this, generally speaking.- My point was different… my point was that their actual concrete advice from there applies mostly to a specific elite kind of people who want to go to grad school and/or do certain types of studies/activities which about 88+% of people are not going to be into for one reason or another, starting with the fact that only about 12% of people go to grad school in the first place. Yes money is one main factor why many people won’t even think to go grad school but sure that reason doesn’t apply to everyone like you mention.
We can discuss the pros and cons of EA not being diverse. I think there are pros to its focus on the things it does, and I don’t mean to sound like I’m bashing it 100%. But I think it’s pretty clear that EA is not diverse as is, and doesn’t resonate with people outside the general Ivy League world too too much.

gogreatergood 8 Mar 2025 16:26 UTC
27 points
7 ∶ 2
on: History of diversity efforts and trends in EA
Something specific I would like to see… looking for feedback on the concept:
More outreach to bringing in specific people from low and middle income countries to EAGs. Most obviously on the topic of global health and global poverty. (But also for other topics.)
For example, Fistula Foundation, Give Directly, and many other orgs work with people who grew up and/or currently live/work in these places. These orgs could be contacted to see who they thought was ideal to bring in to EAGs, and I’m sure they would have many recommendations.
The people we are aiming to help should be well within the conversation. Or at least slightly in it. Rather than just be the helpers/(elites) meeting amongst themselves.
I do see this happen a bit; I’ve sought out and met with a number of people who were born in various low-income countries. They are always so insightful and have a lot of ideas about complex root problems etc that EA can gloss over in just looking at the straightforward fixes / band-aids.
(However to be honest I do also wonder if people in these cases think the long trip was worth it, because I don’t know if many EAs really care to hear from such people as much as they care to hear from people more similar to themselves.)

Personally I would love for such people to not just be present, but also giving lots of talks.
I could personally find a bunch of these people if anyone thought it was worth my while; I already have a few ideas and specific people in mind.
What links here?
- gogreatergood's comment on Am I Missing Something, or Is EA? Thoughts from a Learner in Uganda by Dr Kassim (17 Mar 2025 22:57 UTC; 3 points)

gogreatergood 8 Mar 2025 16:19 UTC
11 points
9 ∶ 5
in reply to: geoffrey’s comment on: History of diversity efforts and trends in EA
EA is “above-the-curve” on DEI stuff?
No, EA is the only place in the entire world I have been (and I have been many varied places) where I—a white straight male—am considered diverse, or at least semi-diverse… simply because I come from a typical white background that’s not super wealthy; I’m the first to go to college in my family (and not ivy league); etc. (Or at least, there are “socioeconomic diversity” meetups at EAGs where they list me as diverse for these reasons. So I’m going off their definitions.)
And EA is aimed in many ways at maintaining exclusivity, even while incredible people like Julia make great strides in making it more inclusive. For example, some people in EA think my EA-oriented after-school program is a waste of time because it’s not directed at the highest achievers. And indeed, there are few EA-oriented programs that are not directed at the highest achievers. Even 80,000 hours career advice applies not at all to the average person, but is oriented only to those who are already going to spend 6+ years shelling out money for undergrad and grad school, etc (at least last I checked).

gogreatergood 8 Mar 2025 4:40 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
on: History of diversity efforts and trends in EA
I have thought this to be so important for quite a while now, especially given the overall vibe of EA actually purposefully aiming to be exclusive (aiming purposefully at the most elite in a variety of ways). Thank you so much for your continued work on this subject Julia !!!!!!
I remember I showed this video talk of yours in 2020 to some fellows when I was helping run an EA fellowship, and one woman of color student in particular really appreciated your thoughts and tips. I don’t see your talk listed above but it’s really great as well (but perhaps you did more extensive writing that’s better linked than this particular video, idk).
Nice to think that some of your hard work on this has really paid off! With the recent numbers you present that EA is at least slightly more diverse overall, (with perhaps a sudden increase just in the last year that hopefully continues also).
Thanks again !!!!!

gogreatergood 18 Feb 2025 4:12 UTC
13 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Julia_Wise🔸’s comment on: The case for curing untreated birth trauma
thank you Julia for engaging with me. most people don’t give me much when I occasionally post here. you have helped me to think about different valid points and refine my own thoughts and how I word things. appreciate you !!

gogreatergood 18 Feb 2025 1:12 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Julia_Wise🔸’s comment on: The case for curing untreated birth trauma
Sorry to write a 3rd comment in response to your latest one. Hope I’m not throwing you off, I’d be curious and enjoy hearing any additonal thoughts from you even if I disagree with them.
Just wanted to point out this fantastic Emmy-award winning documentary that profiles a few women who outreach teams managed to find and connect with a hospital that Fistula Foundation funded in Ethiopia.

One of the women profiled, the surgery didn’t work (so she would be in the 12%), but they did end up finding a less ideal workaround for her anyway as they continued to care for her.

gogreatergood 18 Feb 2025 1:06 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Julia_Wise🔸’s comment on: The case for curing untreated birth trauma
+ btw your number should be 12,000 on the 88% cure rate, not 22,000.
+ also btw this was a good point about their methods not being perfect even if they DO reach everyone, that was a good rebuttal to what I had initially said! thank you for bringing it up and allowing me to respond further in the other comment I just posted.
+ my main point in bringing this point of “permanence” or “persistence” up… was more about what’s being aimed at in a broad sense.
FF is acting toward an end (or to be fair a near-end) to untreated birth trauma. whereas other orgs eg Malaria Consortium are acting toward an indefinite dependence on foreign help and pharmaceutical companies for something that does not end (nor near-end) the problem as much as keep it more under control.

gogreatergood 18 Feb 2025 0:50 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Julia_Wise🔸’s comment on: The case for curing untreated birth trauma
I feel like things are being looked at here in a bit of a bad faith manner. I apologize if I am wrong.
1. Yes “in it to end it” is an aspirational phrase, and limited to their “vision” page. It’s not at the forefront of any details of what they are actually doing on the ground.
  
  I imagine the Fistula Foundation team is indeed motivated to see this problem eliminated from the planet totally.
  
  Perhaps they will transform more to the prevention side as they finish their mission of tackling the extremely low-hanging fruit of curing 88% of the 1 million women who have these 2 conditions of untreated obstetric fistula and untreated perineal tears. That is the obvious thing to do for now and will eliminate 88% of the issue of untreated birth trauma.
  
  People in EA think that we will all be immortal and merge with machines. And many other crazy things. But perhaps we will never ever be able to stop all women from being permanently incontinent due to birth trauma. To me this seems more than plausible.
2. They are indeed building up local obstetric health infrastructure, in some manner or another. I did not say they are currently providing care prior to or during births as you seemed to think I said. Obstetrics is anything to do with the female reproductive organs.
  
  I merely speculated that as FF amplifies and supports the efforts of already amazing OB/GYNs around the low-income world, and continuing to build up their outreach programs that brings in women from all over the place in to be connected with OB/GYNs, that this could at some point spill over more into the prevention side of things. Maybe I’m wrong about that. That’s why I said I wasn’t sure of it. But it is not far-fetched.
  
  Greatly increasing the number of women who are connected with OB/GYN doctors… knowing where they are located and what they can do, etc, you think is not building up obstetric health infrastructure? This is the phrasing that I’m personally using but the details here are correct. Many of these 100,000 women they have funded surgeries for didn’t even know their condition was curable beforehand. [edit to include this link: https://fistulafoundation.org/what-we-do/how-we-work/]

gogreatergood 17 Feb 2025 19:55 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Julia_Wise🔸’s comment on: The case for curing untreated birth trauma
As a side note, I do also see potential for their current system to additionally cascade into more of the prevention side. I’m not sure of this. But, at least, they are definitely building up local obstetric health infrastructure around the world in long-lasting manners.

gogreatergood 17 Feb 2025 19:51 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Julia_Wise🔸’s comment on: The case for curing untreated birth trauma
Perhaps it’s my own “marketing” here that is bad, and my own wording that is sloppy in this post.
Fistula Foundation doesn’t use this phrase “a lot” and looking around their site, starting with their homepage (where they don’t use this phrase), it’s not at all vague what they are ending. They are ending this condition being a permanent and horrifying disability for one million women around the world. And moving it to be the easily and quickly cured condition that it is. (And already they have funded over 100,000 surgeries with an 88% cure rate, so on this front they do have some potential to actually end this condition as a disability.)

gogreatergood 17 Feb 2025 17:33 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Julia_Wise🔸’s comment on: The case for curing untreated birth trauma
It would be permanent elimination of *untreated* obstetric fistula & perineal tears (both of which Fistula Foundation treats). Not the elimination of obstetric fistula / perineal tears themselves.

I apologize if I was a little sloppy with my wording on that.

gogreatergood 16 Feb 2025 22:13 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Davidmanheim’s comment on: The case for curing untreated birth trauma
Thank you for your thoughtful comment David !
The “permanence” idea is definitely something I have not thought too carefully on, which is why it’s just one of the little side points in this piece. -- so I appreciate your thoughts to help me think about it more carefully.
I agree that persistence is another good word for this; and also that this could be a sub-topic under cost effectiveness. Great points.
I think I slightly disagree that fixing the fistula problem is different from eliminating diseases. But in any case I do agree with your overall point on that, that persistence is probably a better word to use!
Thank you again.

The case for curing untreated birth trauma

gogreatergood16 Feb 2025 21:40 UTC

18 points

14 comments1 min readEA link

gogreatergood 14 Dec 2024 4:55 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Rasool’s comment on: U.S. UBI study (2024) - more bad than good?
oh wow great find. I did not see that in searching the forum for it, as I figured the poster would include the title of the study in the text. - thank you !! happy to see someone else confirming that this is a potentially significant study, at least in UBI world.

gogreatergood 12 Dec 2024 16:28 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Matthew_Barnett’s comment on: U.S. UBI study (2024) - more bad than good?
Thank you for your insights Matthew, that all makes a lot of sense and helps me understand.
I wonder if there is an income bracket low enough in the US, where UBI focused just for that group, would have net positive impact. (This study was $29,900 average household income for the participants.) Or, if there is going to be a net negative for UBI in the US just no matter… even before getting detailed about potential counter-factual scenarios.
Funny that UBI seems to do better than more targeted approaches, in low-income countries… but in high-income countries, even for the poorest within those countries, more targeted approaches may be the better option.

gogreatergood

The case for cur­ing un­treated birth trauma

The case for curing untreated birth trauma