>>Why present 50% as the “maximum typical”?
>>Arguably someone earning $1M+ annually should be encouraged to give a lot more than 50%
In the US tax deductions cap at 60%, so that could be a sensible place to draw a line.
Tyner
Karma: 792
[Question] 8 years ago MMM donated to GiveWell, what happened next?
Cool org I’ve not heard of, thanks!!
Toby—I appreciated reading your updates based on the events of the last 5ish years.
I’m am wondering if you have also reconsidered the underlying analyses and assumptions that went into your initially published models? There’s been a fair amount written about this; to me the best is from David Thorstad here:
https://reflectivealtruism.com/category/exaggerating-the-risks/
I would really value you engaging with the arguments he or others present, as a second kind of update.
Cheers
Thank you for trying <3
I would really appreciate further analysis of family planning as an intervention. Some specific questions I’d like to see tackled:
What is the cost effectiveness of these interventions/organizations when looking at a variety of metrics (e.g. preventing maternal deaths, preventing obstetric fistula, increasing subjective well-being, increasing wealth etc.)?
Some framework for tallying these benefits.
Do these interventions lead to a permanent reduction in family size, or a temporary one?
What is the impact to farmed animals (i.e. does this intervention benefit from the meat-eater problem)?
What about climate change or other environmental impacts?
Here are some posts that provide a start:
And here’s a really good report on one org:
https://rethinkpriorities.org/publications/family-empowerment-media
And CE has some good reports on some interventions:
I don’t think that SEADS still exists. They haven’t posted in a while and their website is dead
In memory of Steven M. Wise
>What I personally think is that those who are pledgees should consider donation matching as part of a prospective job’s compensation as it is a permanent cost. (also would incentivise negotiation in that direction)
I’m not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that GWWC should include the donation match in the denominator, but not the numerator? Or include in both? Or are you not talking about GWWC at all here?
I’m giving to the EA Animal Welfare Fund.
https://funds.effectivealtruism.org/funds/animal-welfare
I thought this was likely among the best giving opportunities around. And then was further persuaded by the investigation from GWWC.
You say “don’t yet”...are you aware of anyone working on a project to incorporate deontology or other non-utilitarian factors in cause prioritization?
because we don’t yet have a way to give enough weight to subjective wellbeing, the value of self-determination, or justice
Do you have thoughts on giving now vs. later?
Investing to give e.g. (https://www.founderspledge.com/research/investing-to-give)?
If you got google stock options or grants from 2013 (I don’t know if you did) then those would have increased in value about 800%, so could your giving go much further if delayed to take advantage of gain? Or do you think of it some other way?
Thanks.
Hi Joel,
I would love to do this but do not have the bandwidth right now. I believe that Froolow is also a health economist and may be available.
Cheers
How does Focus Philanthropy compare and contrast with Farmed Animal Funders?
Good luck!
Hi Saulius, thank you for the interesting post. When you consider wild animal interventions do you include wild-caught fish?
e.g.
Hi Edward,
You might be interested in the work of the Non-Human Rights Project. They are attempting to establish the legal and political frameworks to ensure that animals (e.g. tigers) will be treated well by people.
Thanks for writing this.
I don’t think this is significant. The use of the word “consumption” is interchangeable with purchasing in economic contexts. The use of the word “marginal” is possibly superfluous. However, I think there’s an interpretation that makes sense here, where an individual is increasing total suffering “at the margin” by virtue of their consumption. That is, they are not responsible for the whole of the suffering, but the marginal increase in suffering caused by their personal consumption. The language is unclear, but I would not agree that it is a significant error (unless you consider unclarity or vagueness to be significant mistakes).
2-4 I agree with you. I particularly appreciate the point about ‘naive vs. non-naive’.
cheers
Maybe one way to address this would be separate posts? The first raises the problems, shares emotions. The second suggests particular actions that could help.
How much lawsuits of this type typically cost
What the base rate for success is for this kind of work
How long this kind of work typically takes to get traction
The Nonhuman Rights Project provides a possible point of comparison. From 2013 to 2023 they raised $13.2 Million. As far as I know, they have never won a case.