This post[1] is intended as an open thread for anyone to share where you donated or plan to donate in 2022, and why.
I encourage you to share regardless of how small or large a donation you’re making! And you shouldn’t feel obliged to share the amount that you’re donating.
You can share as much or as little detail as you want (anything from 1 sentence simply describing where you’re giving, to multiple pages explaining your decision process and key considerations).
And if you have thoughts or feedback on someone else’s donation plans, I’d encourage you to share that in a reply to their “answer”, unless the person indicated they don’t want that. (But remember to be respectful and kind while doing this! See also supportive scepticism.)
Why commenting on this post might be useful:
- You might get useful feedback on your donation plan
- Readers might form better donation plans by learning about donation options you're considering, seeing your reasoning, etc.
- Commenting or reading might help you/other people become or stay inspired to give (and to give effectively)
Related:
- Effective Giving Day is coming up — November 28 — next week!
- Talk about donations earlier and more
- Previous posts of this kind:
As a final note: we’re enabling emoji reactions for this thread.
- ^
Adapted almost entirely from Where are you donating in 2020 and why?, with permission.
[hastily written, apologies in advance if I don't respond further]
Hi! Thanks for sharing. Unfortunately I don't have the bandwidth to engage with the attention this comment deserves. Part of the reason I didn't default to including my reasoning initially is because I didn't want it to turn into a "neartermism vs longtermism" discussion thread. But it's my fault for not clarifying this, and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts, which will hopefully be helpful for other readers who do have time to engage!
I think in short it sounds like I have larger uncertainties than you around both empirical and philosophical considerations, and because of these uncertainties, it's not clear to me that funding things like AI alignment youtube content or longtermist researchers or forecasting infrastructure are clearly better than preventing malaria or getting more kids vaccinated, or cash transfers to the very poor.
If you have a compelling case that the cost-effectiveness of GiveWell's top charities is much lower than they think it is, I'd encourage you to also reach out to GiveWell! They recently had a "Change our Minds" contest, and while the contest has closed, I'm confident they'll be open to a forum post that strongly justified why they are too optimistic about their top charities.
Lastly, as mentioned earlier, I prefer to try and contribute to longtermist causes with my work time,[1] and donate to neartermist causes.
Things I'm involved with / have done that could plausibly be categorised as longtermist in nature: potentially writing a grand futures paper with Anders Sandberg @ FHI, taking part in a forecasting tourney organised by Tetlock, getting involved with advocating for mitigating existential risks for UN OCA process, moderating an AI safety panel at the Internet Governance Forum, and contributing to someone's script submission for longtermist youtube content.
I didn't go into this previously because I think it is irrelevant, but I'm just noticing a feeling of somehow needing to defend my choice of only donating to neartermist causes. But to be clear I currently think neartermist donation choices are justifiable even without any contributions from one's work life to existential risk or the far future of humanity.