I see the downvoting trend as a symptom of some potentially problematic community dynamics. I think this warrants a top-level post so we can hash out what the purpose, value, and risks are of downvotes.
mhpage
Karma: 406
Thanks, Julia. You make an important point here that I think is often lost in discussion of the “how much is enough” issue. The issue often is framed in terms of a conflict between one’s own interests and the world’s interests (e.g., ice cream for me or a bednet for someone else). But when viewed in terms of burnout/sustainability, the conflict disappears: allowing oneself to eat ice cream every so often might actually be in the world’s best interest. Even a means machine requires oil.
The people who ask me about my shirt generally have never heard of effective altruism, but they are sufficiently interested in what “effective altruism” literally suggests to want more information.
I wear the t-shirt from EA Global (San Francisco) all the time. I love the design and actually find it to be a pretty effective way to start a conversation about EA, presumably because only those with interest in the idea ask me about it. I think a more-involved logo might be viewed as more confrontational and therefore less likely to elicit inquiries.
I don’t get that criticism. I can always donate to help you do direct work. I don’t see any way to criticize donating per se other than through non-consequentialist reasoning.
Edit: Unless they’re criticizing the ratio of direct work to donations.
I appreciate the feedback. I also shoot down most of my ideas, but I thought this one was worth sharing. I don’t want to be in the position of “defending” the viability of the idea, but I will at least attempt to clarify it:
I did not imagine this ultimately catering primarily to the EA community, which is why I didn’t think of .impact or impact certificates as alternatives. I imagined a widely used site like Craigslist on which people advertised random skills and needs. I didn’t imagine an explicit “EA angle” other than that the goal was to get the most out of people’s time and encourage them to direct the proceeds to the best charities.
The idea behind creating a new site was twofold: First is that my perception (which might well be wrong) was that there is not presently a market for people to sell a few hours of their time a week. There is certainly a market for people who want to sell their talents as a closer-to-full-time profession. And there might be a market for people who want to sell a few hours on the weekend for certain services. But I didn’t think what I envisioned existed. Again, I could be wrong (and it might be that voolla.org is trying to do exactly that).
Second is that I thought it at least possible that the site might develop momentum as a consequence of the charity angle. In other words, if the same service is offered for the same price on a regular commercial site and on this site, why not use this site and help the world at the same time? Relatedly, users of the site would be able to signal their charitable work.
Yes, I meant to include a shout-out to .impact. Consider this a belated one.
This IS quite similar! Thanks. Will look further into it.
Of course. But as I understand it, the hypothesis here is that given (i) the amount of money that will invariably go to sub-optimal charities; and (ii) the likely room for substantial improvements in sub-optimal charities (see DavidNash’s comment), that one (arguably) might get more bang for their buck trying to fix sub-optimal charities. I think it’s a plausible hypothesis.
I’m doubtful that one can make GiveWell charities substantially more effective. Those charities are already using the EA lens. It’s the ones that aren’t using the EA lens for which big improvements might be made at low cost.
EDIT: I suppose I’m assuming that’s the OP’s hypothesis. I could be wrong.
This is true with respect to where a rational, EA-inclined person chooses to donate, but I think you’re taking it too far here. Even in the best case scenario, there will be MANY people who donate for non-EA reasons. Many of those people will donate to existing, well-known charities such as the Red Cross. If we can make the Red Cross more effective, I can’t see how that would not be a net good.
I am very intrigued by the potential upside of this idea. As I see it, one can change charity culture by changing consumer demand (generally what GiveWell does), which will eventually lead to a change in product. Alternatively, one can change charity culture by changing the product directly, on the assumption that many consumers care more about the brand than the product.
Would the service be free to the nonprofits? Would it help nonprofits conduct studies to assess their impact?
Anecdata: I have a friend who works at a big-name nonprofit who has been trying to find exactly this service.
I’ve been thinking about how to weigh the direct impact of one’s career (e.g., donations) against the impact of being a model for others. For example, imagine option A is a conventional, high-paying salaried job, and option B is something less conventional (e.g., a startup) with a higher expected (direct) impact value. It’s not obvious to me that option B has a higher expected impact value when one takes into account the potential to be a model for others. In other words, I think there might be a unique kind of value in doing good in a way that others can emulate. I’m curious whether you agree with this, and if so, how one might factor it into the analysis.
Haha, don’t be silly, I stopped eating solid food a long time ago.
[Was just joking about vegetables.]
I didn’t derive sufficient immediate pleasure from reading the news. But like eating one’s vegetables, I thought it was justified by long-term returns.
(Hoping someone now provides a reason I don’t have to eat my vegetables.)
Indeed, that is what I meant.
I was assuming that MIRI’s position is that it presently is the most-effective recipient of funds, but that assumption might not be correct (which would itself be quite interesting).
A modified version of this question: Assuming MIRI’s goal is saving the world (and not MIRI), at what funding level would MIRI recommend giving elsewhere, and where would it recommend giving?
Thanks, Ryan, but years of reading the news have left me unable to process such a long, thoughtful piece about how years of reading the news will leave me unable to process long, thoughtful pieces.
I love it when reason points in a direction I already wanted to go but mistakenly thought it unreasonable. Thanks.
What’s the argument for not consuming news? I don’t necessarily disagree, but it’s not self-evident to me.
I’m curious as a descriptive matter whether people have been downvoting due to disagreement or something else. Why, for example, do so many fundraising announcements get downvotes? I’m not certain we need a must-comment policy, but the mere fact that I don’t know what a downvote means certainly impacts its signalling value.