Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Answer by Gemma 🔸3
1
0

Hi! Thanks for sharing - I also found Nick's answer very helpful but also wanted to suggest checking out charities launched by Charity Entrepreneurship:

OUR CHARITIES | CE (charityentrepreneurship.com)

They publish lots of research into why they think the interventions would have a large positive impact. Some of the charities they have launched that I find particularly inspiring include: 
- Lead Exposure Elimination Project · Giving What We Can
- New Incentives · Giving What We Can
- Suvita · Giving What We Can

Reply
See in context
by Linck
1 min read2 answers 0

6

Building effective altruismGlobal health & developmentEffective givingCriticism of effective altruist organizationsCriticism of work in effective altruism
Frontpage

Hi. I'm very new to EA and I'm currently looking for an institution to start donating to

I've heard arguments against institutions like GiveWell that focus on giving away bednets, that talk about how it ends up making these communities dependent on donations and unable to produce their own bednets. I wasn't able to find anywhere that GiveWell addresses that issue. This is a video I watched about GiveWell: 

 

Then I went looking for other institutions that focus on effectiveness. Ideally I'm thinking it would be best to donate to countries that have a weak currency, so that my money is more impactful there

The problem is I'm having a hard time finding institutions that actually focus on sustainability, as in being thoughtful about the long term impacts of the work their doing

Does anyone have any thoughts on my concerns or recommendations on how to go about finding sustainable altruism?

6

0
0

Reactions

0
0
New Answer
New Comment


2 Answers sorted by
Top

Nick Whitaker

24
5
0

Hi there! Glad to hear you are taking an interest in these questions. I wanted to offer you a few general observations that might be helpful.

arguments against institutions like GiveWell that focus on giving away bednets, that talk about how it ends up making these communities dependent on donations and unable to produce their own bednets.

I think a few different questions might be getting linked together here. One question is the best way to get people an effective public health intervention, like malaria nets. Another is how we can ensure economic development, so that communities need not be dependent on foreign support. 

To answer the first: from my perspective, there’s no reason any particular community needs to be able to make their own malaria nets. Rather, they should be a made by whoever has a comparative advantage in making malaria nets. It would be highly inefficient if every community threatened by malaria needed to make their own nets. That's why we trade. So I'm not sure about an argument that would require we need to teach any malaria stricken community how to make nets themselves.

But that does lead to the second question: of how a community can become economically self sufficient. This is a much more difficult question—in fact it’s one of the big questions of economics, particularly developmental economics. 

My understanding (noting this is a huge subject) is that we don’t know of any silver bullets, but it’s well-accepted that better health, education, and institutions is a key part of the story. Because we don't have a silver bullet, we can at least offer to alleviate a preventable health problem like malaria. Hopefully, a healthier society will create the foundation for future prosperity and wellness--so that they won't be dependent on donations. In particular, when the long term effects of malaria nets have been looked at, they've been highly effective in reducing the overall mosquito population.

This also means that mosquito nets have 'positive externalities'. That is to say, they help people beyond the purchaser of the net. When goods have positive externalities, they tend to be undersupplied. That might help explain why communities aren't already trading for more malaria nets, as well as the need for subsidy. 

Also: I worry a bit about the word 'sustainability' in these contexts. One might have to, say, runaway from a mugger at an unsustainable pace, but that's alright because it's an exigent circumstance. You aren't going to be running forever. 

I think when we say 'unsustainable' we usually mean something has negative externalities, like carbon emissions, so we can't keep on the same path for ever. But there are plenty of temporary measures that are at once unsustainable but certainly worth doing. I agree with you we should focus on which actions will have the best long run consequences. But that doesn't necessarily mean sustainable. 

One last thing: Your point about weak currencies is very thoughtful. You might want to investigate the concept of purchasing power parity and Will MacAskill's concept of the 100x multiplier. 

Hopefully someone else can give further details about malaria nets or GiveWell, if you are curious to learn more!

Linck2
0
0

That's a fair point that the affected communities making their own nets isn't necessarily the most efficient path, but it could be, I don't know. I guess what I wrote there isn't really the all that's potentially problematic with the Malaria Consortium institution, but there are a few other details about how they operate that worry me. Things like how they make distributions in a 2 year interval, and people who want bednets can't get any because they need to wait for another distribution, since there is no longer any bednets being produced locally because ... (read more)

Reply
3
Robi Rahman
Malaria Consortium doesn't distribute bednets, they give out medicine that prevents malaria infections. Are you asking about Against Malaria Foundation, which does distribute bednets?
2
John Salter
Have you consider the charities that fight preventable blindness? Kids in LMICs oft go blind for lack of vitamin A. These charities find them, supplement vitamin A, and as a result the child grows up being able to see. There's no "local vitamin A " industry to bankrupt. It doesn't make people dependent, it does the polar opposite. Off the top of my head, these seem to match your values pretty well
2
Nick Whitaker
Sorry I can't provide more specific details about Malaria Consortium either. You might find some helpful stuff in the Givewell reviews. 

Gemma 🔸

3
1
0

Hi! Thanks for sharing - I also found Nick's answer very helpful but also wanted to suggest checking out charities launched by Charity Entrepreneurship:

OUR CHARITIES | CE (charityentrepreneurship.com)

They publish lots of research into why they think the interventions would have a large positive impact. Some of the charities they have launched that I find particularly inspiring include: 
- Lead Exposure Elimination Project · Giving What We Can
- New Incentives · Giving What We Can
- Suvita · Giving What We Can

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 31m read
 · 
James Özden and Sam Glover at Social Change Lab wrote a literature review on protest outcomes[1] as part of a broader investigation[2] on protest effectiveness. The report covers multiple lines of evidence and addresses many relevant questions, but does not say much about the methodological quality of the research. So that's what I'm going to do today. I reviewed the evidence on protest outcomes, focusing only on the highest-quality research, to answer two questions: 1. Do protests work? 2. Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Here's what I found: Do protests work? Highly likely (credence: 90%) in certain contexts, although it's unclear how well the results generalize. [More] Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Yes—the report's core claims are well-supported, although it overstates the strength of some of the evidence. [More] Cross-posted from my website. Introduction This article serves two purposes: First, it analyzes the evidence on protest outcomes. Second, it critically reviews the Social Change Lab literature review. Social Change Lab is not the only group that has reviewed protest effectiveness. I was able to find four literature reviews: 1. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018), Protest Intervention Report. 2. Orazani et al. (2021), Social movement strategy (nonviolent vs. violent) and the garnering of third-party support: A meta-analysis. 3. Social Change Lab – Ozden & Glover (2022), Literature Review: Protest Outcomes. 4. Shuman et al. (2024), When Are Social Protests Effective? The Animal Charity Evaluators review did not include many studies, and did not cite any natural experiments (only one had been published as of 2018). Orazani et al. (2021)[3] is a nice meta-analysis—it finds that when you show people news articles about nonviolent protests, they are more likely to express support for the protesters' cause. But what people say in a lab setting mig
Recent opportunities in Effective giving
151
Projects I'd like to see in the GHW meta space
Melanie Basnak🔸
· · 8m read
3
3
9
An International Collaborative Hub for Advancing AI Safety Research
Cody Albert
· · 6m read
0
0
50
Introducing Karoteno: Expanding Effective Giving in Spain
Guillem Lajara🔸
· · 4m read
0
0
View more