How does Focus Philanthropy compare and contrast with Farmed Animal Funders?
Good luck!
How does Focus Philanthropy compare and contrast with Farmed Animal Funders?
Good luck!
Thank you for trying <3
This subject was discussed by Fai here:
In the comments no one seemed to know of anyone taking on this issue so it seems fully neglected.
Very nice post. It does seem like two of your points are potentially at odds:
>People who are not totally dedicated to EA will make some concession to other selfish or altruistic goals, like having a child, working in academia, living in a specific location, getting fuzzies, etc. If this would make them miss out on a multiplier, their “EA part” should try much harder to avoid this concession, or find a way to still hit the multiplier.
vs.
>Aiming for the minimum of self-care is dangerous.
It seems the “concessions” could fall under the category of self-care.
Red team: This is not the most important century.
Context: https://www.cold-takes.com/most-important-century/
Thanks for writing, I agree with a bunch of these.
As far as #14, is this something you’ve thought about trying to tackle at Rethink? I don’t know of another org that would be better positioned...
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.
Hello!
-
Below is a link to the Philanthropy 50 from last year. It is US only and ranks by amount given
Very exciting project, congratulations
Hi Saulius, thank you for the interesting post. When you consider wild animal interventions do you include wild-caught fish?
e.g.
This is my favorite criticism contest entry. The amount of actionable information is really great. I would love to see various organizations move to incorporate these methods, where applicable. Very nice use of visuals as well.
I know you said in a previous post that you are not involved in EA. I hope you’ll consider staying involved after this criticism contest. It seems you have a lot of value you could add.
I took AAC online course in 2021. I thought it was great. I learned a lot about animal advocacy, existing organizations, needed skills, potential roles...and made a bunch of animal-relevant connections on LinkedIn. I have subsequently recommended it to anyone who is interested in finding a career in animal advocacy. If that is you, and you’re not sure what steps to take, definitely do the course!
A smaller change that I think would be beneficial is to eliminate strong upvotes on your own comments. I really don’t see how those have a use at all.
Hi Ann,
Some quibbles with your book list. Animal Liberation came out in 1975, not 2001.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29380.Animal_Liberation
You overlooked Scout Mindset, which came out in 2021.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/42041926-the-scout-mindset
Also,
>Essentially, neartermist causes served as an on-ramp to EA (and to longtermism). Getting rid of that on-ramp seems like a bad idea.
Do you worry at all about a bait-and-switch experience that new people might have?
Thanks for posting. I have a question regarding this passage:
>For example, more than a few EA people of colour I’ve spoken to have expressed discomfort about only donating to maximally effective charities, and this relates directly to their intersectional identity. Being both a part of the wealthy global elite and people of colour, they feel a special obligation to help people within their own communities who are not blessed with the same advantages.
Many people feel a desire to keep donations within whatever they perceive as their community. For example, alumni donate to their college. Former Boy Scouts donate to Boy Scouts. Etc. Are you saying that POC feel this more than other people? If so, is there any evidence to support this idea?
Hi Fai, I agree with whoever encouraged you to post more. I always enjoy and appreciate your stuff even when we don’t 100% agree.
The below sentence is difficult to parse, what do you actually mean? That it was economic reasons, or that it was not economic reasons, or something else entirely?
>Well, I personally did not have much hope in humanity’s moral progress, until I recently got moderately convinced that it’s less likely than not that we abolished slavery mainly for economic reasons. And in case you think that it is impossible to have moral progress without economic reasons. I tend to disagree, and Will Macaskill also. He wrote in What We Owe The Future that the view that it was economic incentives caused by new technologies that cause slavery to be abolished, is now out of fashion in academia. He thinks that it was pretty much the triumph of the abolitionists. So there’s a reason to think that moral progress is a genuine alternative to technologically forced social progress.
Cheers
Another organization that is spending some time on this is sogive.org They have impact assessments for groups like Planned Parenthood and Muslim Aid.
I can provide an anecdotal use case that is maybe not quite tackled in your write up. My mother-in-law is a retired dentist. She gives money to the American Dental Association every year. This strikes me as an ineffective organization mostly because US dentists are typically quite wealthy. If I told her “forget all that, give your money to Humane League/Helen Keller/Intelligence.org″ I think it would be a non-starter. If I can tell her about a more effective way to help people with dental issues that’s a much shorter moral distance for her to travel. That was part of why I was really pleased to see Founder’s Pledge release their report on Oral Health recently https://founderspledge.com/stories/oral-healthcare
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.
I’m not sure if this perspective is helpful but this issue reminds me of a somewhat analogous situation in the Financial Independence Retire Early (FIRE) movement. Originally the focus was on drastically limiting spending, increasing the savings rate to as high as possible, and retiring shockingly young. Then, as time passed some people realized they didn’t want to live in such austerity. Other people found that they could move things along faster by focusing on earning more, instead of spending less. Then there were people who didn’t really want to retire but more like get enough income to be comfortable and then downshift their lifestyles. There were folks who just focused on making as much money as possible and remained in the community even though they were just about getting rich. Then some people sort of stumbled into the movement having made a ton of money on cryptocurrency or Tesla options or whatever...they never really applied any of the principles but still retired early.
With all these changes in the demographics and mindsets of the community I’ve noticed that the subjects discussed and the behavior encouraged has notably changed over the years. It does not look much like what I saw 15 years ago.
Part of the change I’ve seen is that people with different flavors in mind self-select to associate with others that are similar. /r/leanfire separates from /r/fatfire etc. I’m guessing that drift and fragmentation like this are very likely for any group/movement that gets big enough. I don’t know if it is a good or bad thing.