I work as Software Tester and donate a part of my income.
I got into EA in 2012.
2 small donations through Effektiv Spenden.
Their climate change fund—according to their description, this adds money to the organizations recommended by Giving Green and Founders Pledge. I don’t prioritize climate change as a cause area, but I give a fixed amount per year to climate charities and Effektiv Spenden supports this one. Why? I do believe climate change is a big problem. Many people feel helpless about climate change, and by donating to a climate charity I can signal that there is a way to actually help—beyond consumption choices. This is also a donation I might be able to talk openly about.
Their animal welfare fund—mostly ACE recommended charities. The animal welfare movement is quite funding constrained (I’ve heard from people from ACE that recommended charities usually(or never?) get their funding gap** filled completely) and evidence-based animal welfare is a new and growing field.
Unfortunately I will not move a lot of money this year, nor will I spend a lot of time thinking about my donations. But I am happy that I can do at least this little bit.
* I thought that, if everyone with an income similar to mine would do this, the climate would be in a better state, but I was wrong. I quickly fact-checked this. This article on nature.com says “The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that an annual investment of $2.4 trillion is needed in the energy system alone until 2035 to limit temperature rise to below 1.5 °C from pre-industrial levels.”. I understand from the article this includes funding from governments and companies. I am not going to disclose my income and my donation budget here, but I can say that my donation is much less than a fair share of this 2.4 trillion. (It may be, if my donation is unusually cost-effective). - apparently it’s damn hard to fix climate change.
** there may be difference between funding gap that the org believes they have themselves, and the funding gap that ACE thinks the org has. I mean the latter.
Is this page of GWWC what you have in mind?
Edit: this page is even better.
I am Dutch and I am excited about doneer effectief. Would a separate post to raise funds for doneer effectief be worth a post on it’s own? See also posts tagged “funding request”.
I don’t now. This is worth a question on its own. Nonlinear is providing emergency funding and mentions donation opportunities, and Open Philanthropy is looking for applications for funding.
I don’t know if the EA Funds are donig anything to support organizations or individuals who lost funding due to the FTX collapes. IIRC they haven’t pubished anything about whether they do, and I would not assume they do.
Good point. There are so many different tags that probably nobody would assign the optimal tags to a post. (At least, I won’t)
I have the tendency to decide to read an article based on the name of the person who posted it. If you have a good reputation, you are more likely to get read.
See a previous comment of mine.
Make tagging mandatory.
This is a really great question. Strong upvoted.
I donated small amounts to early longtermist organizations 2014-2017, before Open Philanthropy Project entered the space. Some of these organizations were funding constrained at the time, but aren’t anymore. And I regret not donating more.
Most notably, I donated to the “Global Priorities Project” at CEA in 2015, and they were funding constrained enought that they were willing to spend the time to have a fundraising call with me, even though my budget was small. This project might have contributed to the Global Priorities Institute in later years.
I could have donated 3x as much.
I prioritized building up financial runway so that I could live off my savings in case I ended up unemployed. This is very understandable. I was early in my career, and having some runway is important for your financial (and mental) health, but I could have afforded more risk. (I might be hindsight biased here because I stayed employed all the time).
There are some voices saying that individual donors’ comparative advantage is that they have local knowledge. An individual can spot promising early stage projects in their network and fund them. This can help getting these projects started in the first place.
I have been hestitant doing this. I don’t trust my own judgement very much. I may be biased funding friends and projects I contributed directly to—and I may have overcorrected for this bias by not donating at all.
I like this post.
Question to fundraisers: what do you think of this? To what extent does this match your experience?
I don’t fully understand your point—can you elaborate on it more? Do you mean that—until the donor transfers the money or signs a binding contract—it remains uncertain whether the donee actually receives money. The donee will have to plan with this risk?
Counter question: if important, how can a donor redue this risk, in your opinion?
I am grateful to the organizers of EAGxVirtual that they are going to make this event happen.
I am excited about this event in particular, because it is accessible to people who live far away from EA hotspots, and to people who—for whatever reason—cannot travel easily (financially, work related, health, family, etc.).
There were people from Israel at EAGx Prague. There were also people from further away.
There is an EAGx Virtual. This EAGx happens online.
I hope they are friendly for the less western timezones as well!
This comment (seen on Kerry Vaughan’s Twitter) hit me hard:
This comment (seen on Kerry Vaughan’s Twitter) hit me hard:
I clicked through to the source. I feel this person. They made a significant commitment because they wanted to help others, and they followed through on it.
This is the type of person I would love to meet. But not at EAG, because I do not want to go to EAG. I don’t fit there, and there are other events (e.g. EAGx or online events) that fit me better.
CEA is not funding constrained. I wonder where the EtG/direct work trade-off lies in more funding constrained or less talent constrained cause areas.
So excited so see an EAGx in my birth city! Looking forward to meeting you there.
I could not imagine this when we were planning to start the first EA group in the Netherlands and meeting the co-initiators in person for the first time in—of all places - Rotterdam. This was back in December 2013.
I’ve heard of a projects that creates a place for sharing anki decks on github, so that others can improve them like open source software. Unfortunately I can’t find the project very quickly.
Ideas coming out of a discussion yesterday evening
Problem: the eventual karma of a post depends a lot on the number of upvotes it gets in the first couple of hours/days after posting it.
Problem: The quality and relevance of new posts varies a lot nowadays. Readers need to (mentally) filter very quickly what to read. We tend to filter on easily available info, such as the karma that the post already has and the author’s name (If your name is “Holden Karnofsky” and I’ve read many good posts from you in the past, I am much more likely to read the post than if your name is “OddHappy153″). This creates a disadvantage for newcomers and infrequent posters.
Idea: for the first X time, don’t show the karma of the posts (unless it has really many downvotes). Maybe don’t show the author’s name on the frontpage either. Or hide it until the user explicitly clicks on “show author”.