My name is Wes. I’m currently figuring out career stuff/life plans. I’m relatively new to the EA (I started interacting with it July 12, 2023)
wes R
Karma: −15
Do you plan to change how these measurements impact your decisions?
Alright, I edited it. Did I miss anything?
It is useful. I wish the page I linked cited sources, and when I find sources, I will mention them. I will also edit the text accordingly.
How do these measurements impact your decisions?
If so, how and why?
Do you plan to change what you measure?
Why aren’t they publicly available?
Which ones do you measure that are not publically available?
Where can I find them(Please be specific)?
What are all the measurements of charities(e.g., QALYs per dollar, lives saved per dollar, CO2 removed from the atmosphere per dollar, etc.) that you have publically available?
No, but thank you for pointing this out! I’ll edit the question.
I think Giving what We Can evaluates these evaluators, and (I think) will Finnish evaluating all of them come 2024.
I imagine there is little benefit to stepping on a bug, and high cost(around 2 weeks − 30 Years-ish of life lost), though it does depend on the species and environment. If it’s in your home, I recommend trying to trap it and put it in the trash(Unless the garbage gets crushed with huge force), as it will have access to plenty of nooks & crannies, as well as food, and won’t bother you.
If there’s a bug infestation, you could, in order of what I imagine has the highest value first, and lowest last, a) Leave it if it’s not bothering you too much, b) If it’s bothering you, hire someone to get rid of them humanely(only if you’re in a bug-tolerant environment(e.g. Not annual-firesville or floodtown), c) If it’s bothering you and you’re in a bug-intolerant environment, move, or d) if none of the others work, do b).
I’m waiting to decide where to give t’ill 2024 comes or later, as GWWC plans on investing several new charities, as well as reviewing current ones, so that my giving will be more accurate, as well as judt the general increase in accuracy of charity evaluators. I also plan on donating much later, and investing it now, to increase the amount of good done.
I find guilt motivating, and it helps rekindle that spark from when I started being an effective altruist. maybe you might find it useful, fut idk.
One quick way to re-instill motivation for those working on the animal welfare of those of unknown sentience, It’s useful to remember that the probability of 2 possibly sentient beings being sentient, even if they are the same species, is independent. They don’t have to be either both sentient or not sentient, so you’re not taking a 1 in 100 chance that your job is worthwhile. You’re taking a 1-(0.99ⁿ) (where n is the number of times you save a life that has a 1 in 100 chance of being sentient) of your job being worthwhile.
Thanks! This will really come in handy.
Would you still like a TL;DR? Sorry it’s been so long.
That’s a good point, and applies to all of them. I think it would be that it encourages people to recognize the rights of non-human animals, but it might just drive demand and increase the popularity of lobster stores, meaning it might do more harm than good. Should I delete this post or edit it to mention to not do this for this reason?
(I separated these questions so that people can upvote and downvote each question separately)