I expect there’s a high probability (maybe 50%) that factory farms are just as bad for chickens as they are for humans, and a somewhat lower probability (maybe 25%) that they are just as bad for fish. I expect it’s more likely that factory farms are worse for humans than that they’re worse for chickens/fish, so in expectation, they’re worse for humans, but not much worse.
Woaha, I didn’t realize that anyone thought that, it would make me change my views greatly if I did.
Can you talk more about what convinced you that they’re a good giving opportunity on the margin?
I asked Tobias Pulver about this specifically. He told me about their future plans and how they’d like to use marginal funds. They have things that they would have done if they’d had more money but couldn’t do. I don’t know if they’re okay with me speaking about this publicly but I invite Tobias or anyone else at REG to comment on this.
I heard—all be it second hand, and last year—of two people involved, Lukas Gloor and Tobias Pulver, saying that thought that the minimal share of GBS/EAF manpower − 1.5 FTEs—that was being invested in REG was sufficient.
Is the number of reads really relevant? How come? I figure people who read content generally don’t act on it, and certainly not in high impact ways.
What do you think the average (mean) expected value of an EA group is?
Machine learning group looks cool: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1582428355359588/?fref=ts
I look forwards to seeing it there! Will it be a slightly different version taking into account feedback?
Obligatory link: To Inspire People to Give, Be Public About Your Giving
Yes, I agree. ‘Effective altruist’ appears to me to be a label picking out a very particular and narrow movement and group of people, despite the broadness of the words we happen to have adopted as a label.
Like the GoogleDoc you posted before, I think this would get the best response on the Giving What We Can blog, or as a quick link on the Effective Altruists facebook group :-) It could go in a forum open thread too!
George Monbiot – an effective altruist in spirit
What makes you say that? Could someone pitch effective altruism to him? He’s a UK author, right?
It works for me now—but I’ve since noticed other Vox articles doing the same thing for a few minutes, then working again. I’m using Google Chrome too, trying it on a Mac now, but maybe it is a browser issue.
Looks like a very in-depth analysis, congratulations. What I’ve read so far has effectively reassured me that room for more funding isn’t ultimately a worry here and that global health is an excellent cause taking it into account. Do link to the final Giving What We Can blog version here, though I imagine most of us who are interested will spot it there and in the newsletter.
I agree insofar as having clear measures for success for suborganizations or projects which sometimes don’t get met, resulting in suborganization sometimes getting shut down, would give me a good deal more confidence as a donor.
That Vox article gives an infinite looping error—is there another copy of it?
What were the referrers for the forum traffic, and which ones increased?
Nice; thanks.
Is there a link for Wozniak?
Many tycoon personality types favour other charities where they’re the main patron. This is pure speculation but others may want to leave room for typical individual donors, as these charities are particularly well suited to them.
I don’t.
This is useful but doesnt entirely answer William’s question. To put it another way: suppose GiveDirectly reduced extreme poverty in East Africa by 50%. What would your best estimate of the effect of that on xrisk be? I’d expect it to be quite positive, but havent thought about how to estimate the magnitude.