I think Muufri is different from your typical for-profit company in that they are doing what no-one else is doing, so I do believe they could have an impact. Auren Hoffman, a serial entrepreneur, says that doing what no-one else is doing may have an outsized impact.
tjmather
Karma: 73
Learning about Wild Animal Suffering has changed my views about environmentalism, specifically about conserving natural habitats for their own sake. I still think environmentalism is important, but as a means to improving human lives by reducing pollution and improving food and water security.
There is a new facebook group to discuss Effective Environmentalism if you are interested.
I think MaxMind is type 1.
Yes thanks for pointing that out. It might be best to support an existing project like ONE Campaign. No need to reinvent the wheel. I updated the original comment.
Great post! To address Rich-Person Morality, I wonder if it would make sense to support political movements to advocate for increased foreign aid for effective programs in the developing world. Government agencies like USAID and DFID are already some of the largest donors to many effective programs (e.g. malaria control and deworming). Yet at the same time, the USAID budget is less than one percent of federal budget, so there seems like there is room to give more.
One nice thing about this type of advocacy is that it would be inclusive of people of all income levels, since we can all vote for candidates who would support increasing the foreign aid budget for effective programs.
Examples of this type of advocacy include the ONE Campaign and the END7 campaign.
We could also advocate for less restrictive immigration laws and government policies to support reduced meat consumption. We could even create a “EA” legislative scorecard to endorse candidates running for public office.
[Update: edited post to reflect Owen’s feedback that we should be supporting existing efforts]
I think you are correct in the sense that overpopulation arguments have a strong anti-natalist assumption behind them. However, most of the funding for family planning comes from governments and large foundations like Gates whose focus is on saving and improving people’s lives.
Evidence Action has a new ‘beta’ initiative to launch new interventions. Evidence Action seems well suited for creating new programs since they have the experience and infrastructure already in place. They have an evidence and cost-effectiveness mindset that seems closely aligned with the EA movement.
Thank you for posting this—I agree this is a research area with high potential. I’ve looked into this a bit and one area I’m interested in is using CRISPR gene drives to help eradicate Schistosomiasis and Dengue fever.
It might cost around $0.5-$5 million to develop and $10-$25 million to thoroughly test gene drives to eradicate Schistosomiasis. If it has a 10% chance of success that would be a fairly high expected value.
I’m also interested in gene drives for soil transmitted helminths (STH), though given low mobility, it might take a long time for the gene drive to spread. Work for gene sequencing of STH is currently under way or planned, depending on the species. Once that is complete, it might make sense to look at funding transgenesis, and then gene drives, with the ultimate goal of eradicating STH.
Thanks. My professional background is as a tech entreprenuer, my LinkedIn profile has more details. I’ve learned about development issues mostly by searching Google Scholar, reading GiveWell’s website, and talking to knowledgeable people.
Given my own limited time and resources, I decided to focus on just four causes. The other causes you mentioned seem worthwhile and it’s good the Open Philanthropy Project is researching those causes.
I think you are right in the sense that farm animal advocacy and global health have much more room for additional funding.
One reason I’m interested in software patent abolition strategies is that they are neglected by funders. While there a decent amount of funding for incremental software patent reform, there is almost no funding available to significantly reduce the patentability of software.
I’d guess that around $250k/year can support “low hanging fruit” strategies towards advocating for reducing software patentability. I’d expect these efforts to have 1% probability of significantly reducing software patent litigation by, say, 50%. If we think litigation costs around $20 billion a year, then the expected value would about $100 million a year. I’m unsure I’d advocate for funding over $250k/year at this time—I think additional funding would be better spent on animals or global health.
Givewell has a good overview of software patent reform.
I agree. There is a new initiative to fund and coordinate research on interventions for farm animals. We just posted details at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/EffectiveAnimalActivism/permalink/483367015167508/
I think that would be a good idea. Would it make sense to have Facebook ads and Google Video ads to promote NutritionFacts.org? We might want to link to a page that distills the information on the videos into a single video or webpage, as the site has a lot of videos!
Another idea could be to translate the videos or make transcriptions and translate those.
A subproblem for factory farming is to expand the evidence base showing how to persuade people to reduce meat consumption. One possible avenue is to encourage research in academia. If you are interested, it might be worth reaching out to https://faunalytics.org/ to see if they are interested in coordinating.
This is potentially a high leverage area since a lot of money is raised to reduce animal suffering without a good empirical research base. Having more research could multiply the effectiveness of charities looking to reduce factory farming.
I’m interested in helping organizations collect more data, using independent surveys of households to measure bed net usage, as well as surveys around deworming programs. One organization that conducts independent surveys is PMA2020. They currently have family planning and WASH surveys, but may add additional modules in the future.
Why did it take so long for someone to start an animal-free milk company?
Is it because the state of the research and technology to enable Muufri’s business wasn’t sufficiently advanced until now? If so, that would support the replaceability hypothesis.
Or is it because there is a shortage of entrepreneurs who start organizations to do something no one else is working on? If so, that seems to support Auren Hoffman’s hypothesis.