Part A
New Incentives, they estimate $5,000 per life saved, so I’d be able to save 60 lives
Helen Keller Intl, they estimate $3,500 per life saved, so I’d be able to save 85 lives
Malaria Consortium, they estimate $5,000 per life saved, so I’d be able to save 60 lives
Part B
I would choose Helen Keller Intl. because of the small cost ($1) of a vitamin A supplement and the lower cost-effectiveness for life saved, and also because there is room for more funding.
Supplements to prevent vitamin A deficiency: 50,400 childs vaccinated for one year, with an estimate of 29 deaths averted
For the sake of using the handbook for an intro fellowship - where is the "earlier estimate of your future income" located, if anywhere, in the handbook? Does it refer to some exercise or to a graph in one of the articles on economic inequality? And if there is no such thing, perhaps an alternative phrasing or including the estimate in the exercise would be great!
Had the same problem, just found it here
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fPNaxqe2YjXEmvJaf/differences-in-impact-interactive-exercise
Thanks a lot for finding and linking! :)
+1 here; looks like this is a vestige from the previous version, and should probably be corrected
Part A.
This will not be fully theoretical: I've already been donating 5% for the last 2 year. First pick would be the Malaria Consortium. It seems to be very cost-effective ($5,000 per life saved on average, $7 ). It also has strong evidence of impact.
Second option would be the Against Malaria Foundation. It is pretty similar to the first choice in target, effectiveness and evidence of impact, but numbers are slightly worse (perhaps?). Cost per life is $2000 dollars more, which looks worse, but cost of output (per bednet output cost, as opposed to the consortium's children treated with a full course of medicine) is a bit lower, at $6. Also, working on prevention seems more far-sighted and perhaps controlable.
Third choice, Helen Keller International. Cost of outcome is practically the same as in the two previous cases, although it is much cheaper in cost of output (just $2 for supplements), but I am more uncertain about the specific results.
Part B.
For all the reasons exposed above, if I have to choose only one, it would be the Malaria Consortium.
Part C.
Generally, decisions relating to investments for retirement in 20 years's time. Perhaps I should also consider alternative jobs or job promotion through this quantitative mindset.
Part A Estimating the Impact of Donating 10% of My Lifetime Income
I’ve always been fascinated by the idea that a single decision, like where to donate money, could have an impact that stretches across communities and even generations. If I were to donate 10% of my lifetime income, say $100,000, I’d want to ensure it goes somewhere it can do the most good. I explored three top charities recommended by GiveWell the Against Malaria Foundation (AMF), Malaria Consortium, and Helen Keller International. And here is what i would go for.
Part B Where Would I Donate $1,000?
If I had to choose just one of these organizations to donate $1,000 to, I would pick the Against Malaria Foundation (AMF).
Why? Because AMF has a well-documented track record, and the cost-effectiveness of their work is clear. Knowing that a simple bed net could mean the difference between life and death for a child makes this an easy decision for me. Even with just $1,000, I could contribute to protecting dozens of people from malaria, and that’s a tangible impact I’d feel good about.
Part C Applying This Approach to Other Life Decisions
This exercise made me think about how I can use a similar approach in my own life, beyond charitable giving. Here are some decisions I will be using a cost benefit analysis to
(A) - Protecting child from malaria- 45,757 children; Vaccines for infants- 2,164 vaccines; malaria nets- 64,060 nets.
(B) I would likely choose the nets since I can provide the most of them with the money, and one net likely protects more than one person.
PART A
My Journey on the Path of Effective Giving:
When I first thought about charitable giving, I imagined it in the same way most people do: giving when I could, to causes that were close to my heart, or when a moving story compelled me to act. While there is nothing wrong with that, I came to realize that my giving could be more deliberate, more impactful, and more life-changing if I approached it with evidence, reason, and compassion. This realization drew me into the philosophy of effective altruism.
Effective altruism is about answering one simple but profound question: How can I use my resources to do the most good? For me, the idea that I could not only help but actually maximize the impact of my giving was transformative. It meant my donations weren’t just symbolic gestures of kindness they could become strategic investments in saving lives, preventing suffering, and improving human well-being on a global scale.
That is why I made the commitment to set aside 10% of my lifetime income for highly effective charities. It is a personal pledge that reflects both responsibility and hope: responsibility to those whose lives I can improve, and hope that my contribution will ripple outward, inspiring others to take the path of effective giving.
Choosing My Charities:
Through GiveWell’s research, I discovered three organizations whose interventions are not only evidence backed but also extraordinarily cost-effective:
1. Malaria Consortium that is providing seasonal malaria chemoprevention.
2. Against Malaria Foundation (AMF) for distributing insecticide treated nets.
3. Helen Keller International that is into offering vitamin A supplementation.
When I look at the numbers, the results are humbling. With just $100,000, which is 10% of a modest lifetime income, I could save around 15 lives and protect the nutrition and survival of over 16,000 children. If my earnings grow and I am able to donate more, the lives saved and children helped increase dramatically.
These numbers matter. They remind me that while I may never be a doctor performing surgeries or a scientist developing vaccines, I can still be part of the chain of saving lives and reducing suffering simply by making thoughtful choices about where my money goes.
Walking the Path of Effective Altruism:
Effective altruism, for me, is not just about money. It is about cultivating a mindset:
• Evidence over impulse: choosing causes not only because they move my heart but because they demonstrably save the most lives or relieve the most suffering.
• Global over local: realizing that my moral circle should not stop at borders. A child at risk of malaria in Nigeria or Sierra Leone is no less deserving of life than a child in my own community.
• Sustainability over one off giving: making giving part of my life’s financial planning, so that it is consistent and impactful over decades, not just a momentary act of generosity.
This path is not always easy. It requires me to resist the allure of flashy, short-term charity drives and instead focus on interventions that are quietly, steadily, and profoundly changing lives. It requires humility to admit that my intuition about what helps may not be as accurate as rigorous research. But walking this path has also been deeply rewarding it gives me peace of mind that I am doing the most I can with what I have.
What This Means for Me
When I imagine the lives my donations could save the children who will grow up free from malaria, the families spared the grief of losing a child, the young bodies strengthened by simple vitamin A supplements I feel a deep sense of connection. These are people I will never meet, but their lives matter, and my choices can touch them.
For me, effective giving is not a sacrifice it is empowerment. It reminds me that the wealth I earn is not just for my own comfort or ambitions. It is also a tool for justice, compassion, and global solidarity.
I walk this path of effective altruism not because I must, but because I can. And in knowing that my actions contribute to saving lives and improving health in the world’s most vulnerable places, I find a profound sense of purpose.
My Lifetime Income & Donation
If I assume my lifetime earnings will be $1,000,000, then 10% = $100,000.
(If I earn more, say $5,000,000, then I would donate $500,000).
For now, I’ll work with the $100,000 donation scenario.
My Allocation & Impact
I’ll split my donation equally among the three charities: $33,333 each.
1. Malaria Consortium – SMC
GiveWell estimates it costs about $3,600 to save a life through seasonal malaria chemoprevention.
• With my share of $33,333, I could save around: 33,333 ÷ 3,600 = 9 lives
2. Against Malaria Foundation (AMF)
It costs about $5,500 to save a life by distributing long-lasting insecticide-treated bed nets to local and rural communities.
• With my $33,333, I could save about: 33,333 ÷ 5,500 ≈ 6 lives
3. Helen Keller International – Vitamin A Supplementation
Vitamin A supplementation costs about $2 per child per year.
• With my $33,333, I could fund around: 33,333 ÷ 2 = 16,666 children supplemented
My Results (Summary Table)
Charity My Donation Impact
Malaria Consortium (SMC) $33,333 = 9 lives saved
Against Malaria Foundation $33,333 = 6 lives saved
Helen Keller International $33,333 = 16,666 children supplemented
So, with just 10% of my lifetime income, I could save around 15 lives and improve the nutrition and survival chances of thousands of children.
If My Income Is Higher
If I earned $5,000,000 and donated $500,000 (10%), my impact would scale up dramatically:
• = 46 lives saved (Malaria Consortium)
• = 30 lives saved (AMF)
• = 83,333 children supplemented (Helen Keller International)
My Reflection
When I look at these numbers, it feels incredibly powerful. By setting aside just a fraction of what I’ll earn over my lifetime, I could directly save dozens of lives and protect the health of tens of thousands of children.
This gives me a clear sense of purpose: my work, my income, and my choices are not just about me they can create a lasting impact in the world.
PART B
My Options with $1,000
1. Save the lives of 200 five year olds: This is direct, tangible, and immediate. Every life saved is invaluable. The moral weight of preventing the death of even one child is staggering.
2. Double the income of 1,000 people earning $1/day: This addresses poverty directly. Instead of living on $1/day, these people would live on $2/day, which could mean access to food security, better housing, or medical care. This is not as dramatic as “saving lives,” but it profoundly improves quality of life and dignity.
3. A 10% chance of enabling 1,000 kids to attend school: Education is long-term leverage. If successful, it could transform entire communities, breaking cycles of poverty and empowering future generations. But the 10% probability introduces uncertainty there’s a 90% chance nothing happens.
How I Weigh Them
• Saving lives: This feels the most urgent. Dead children can’t benefit from education or income growth. Life is the foundation on which everything else is built.
• Doubling income: Extremely meaningful, but poverty reduction is incremental compared to the finality of death. Still, improving income for 1,000 people could indirectly prevent malnutrition and illness.
• Education chance: Attractive for its long-term effects, but the risk (90% chance of no impact) makes it much less certain.
My Choice
If I only had $1,000 to donate once, I would choose the option to save the lives of 200 five-year-olds.
Here’s why:
• It is certain and immediate, unlike the 10% education gamble.
• It preserves the most fundamental good: the right to live. Without life, no other improvement income, education, opportunity matters.
• It feels aligned with effective altruism’s principle of doing the most good now, with clear evidence and high certainty.
That said, I don’t dismiss the importance of poverty alleviation or education at all. In fact, if I were making a long-term giving strategy, I might diversify across all three because income and education create systemic change. But given a forced single choice with $1,000, I would prioritize saving lives first.
PART C
One of the lessons I have drawn from effective altruism is that the discipline of quantitative estimation and comparison can extend far beyond charitable giving. In my career choices, for instance, I weigh not just salary or prestige but the potential number of lives or communities I could positively affect. The same applies to how I allocate my time: should I dedicate extra hours to pro bono work, mentoring, or developing tools that might assist hundreds of businesses? Even though the numbers are rough, asking “how many people could benefit?” often reframes my decisions in more meaningful ways.
This habit also shapes personal and financial planning. When considering further education, lifestyle purchases, or even my daily health routines, I reflect on the opportunity costs: how might a dollar, an hour, or an extra effort translate into long-term impact, either for myself or others? Of course, not every life choice can be reduced to figures, but grounding decisions in estimated outcomes helps me remain mindful of trade-offs. It is a way of ensuring that I live not only by intuition but also by a conscious effort to maximize the good I can do with the resources available to me.
C)
I would consider environmental factors like; cost of living, job opportunities, quality of life
in generating quantitative estimates and comparing them with other environments, cities or countries.
2) Business Investment:
I would consider the high rate of return on investment and pay back period because some businesses have less rate of return and high payback period.
B) I would donate $1000 to Helen Keller International.
Reason:
Because after I calculated the impact per dollar for all three charities for $1000
I observed Hellen has high impact and is the most cost-effective among them.
Unable to make a choice.
I suppose one way to approach this is to do the math and save the most lives, but I don’t do well with mathematics, so this is not an option for me.
Therefore, another approach would be to carry out additional research based on the following thoughts:
If saving a life means keeping someone alive, then perhaps the question I should try to answer is: How long will they be kept alive with the suggested solution? I mean, if someone survives disease A today and dies from disease B tomorrow, then all I did was give them one extra day. Then again, should this matter? Is it more important to help, let’s say 10 people gain one extra day of life than 1 person gain 10 more days of life? I apologize for my phrasing. I know it sounds awful.
To figure all these things out, I will have to conduct my own research to gather additional information about the people who receive these support solutions, what else threatens their lives, and many other factors. Of course, this will require a great deal of time, and then again I will have to consider whether all that time spent on research could cost those people by preventing me from earning the amount of money that would actually help any. In the end, I will choose randomly, hoping that I made the right choice.
Unexpectedly to myself, if I start earning again this year and retire at 70 (which is very probable as I will work for as long as I would be capable), I have a chance to earn more than £1.000.000, that’ll make me able to donate at least £100.000.
Due to cost effective logic, I would donate most of it to Helen Keller International (that would be the answer to second question as well) and the rest to preventive medicine like Malaria Consortium.
I always used such approach in education and job-related decisions. I used it even in the choice of the country to flee the war to. Yes, I spent more time under the missiles and drones, but my choice of new home country was based on reasons not emotions.
A
Malaria foundation can protect 2,959 children and save 4.14 lives
Net to prevent malaria can provide nets to 4,143 nets to children and save 3.8 lives
supplements to prevent vitamin A deficiency (Helen Keller International) can provide 10,357 children with vitamin A and save 4.14 lives.
B
Supplement to prevent vitamin A (Helen Keller International)
why ?
it comes last on the list as regards to the first three. This means, it will most likely be neglected by donors given its position on the list.
C
Interventions of vetconekt
My career as a veterinary surgeon
animal welfare interventions
If I donate %10 of my lifetime income which is $80,000, the most effective option would be Helen Keller International.
Part A
After looking into the numbers and impact, here’s what I found about donating 10% of a lifetime income to these charities:
Malaria Consortium
Impact: Around 11,425 children could be seasonally protected from malaria.
Lives Saved: 16 lives.
Why it stands out: It has exceptionally strong evidence of effectiveness and focuses on preventative care for vulnerable children.
Helen Keller International
Impact: Distributes about 79,977 vitamin A supplements.
Lives Saved: 23 lives.
Why it stands out: It’s incredibly cost-effective (just $2 per supplement) and addresses critical health issues like childhood blindness and mortality.
Against Malaria Foundation
Impact: Distributes roughly 15,995 insecticide-treated bed nets.
Lives Saved: 14.5 lives.
Why it stands out: It’s a well-known charity with strong evidence of effectiveness and focuses on preventing malaria through simple, long-lasting interventions.
Part B
If I had $1,000 to donate to just one charity, I’d choose Helen Keller International.
Why?
It saves the most lives (23) for the least cost.
Its vitamin A supplementation program has a huge reach (nearly 80,000 supplements provided).
I feel it’s slightly more neglected compared to the others, so my donation could make a bigger difference here.
Part C
I think using a numbers-driven approach could help in a few other areas of my life, like:
Career choices: Comparing the long-term impact of working in areas like AI governance, entrepreneurship, or media.
Personal growth: Deciding how much time and money to spend on things like courses or mentoring.
Everyday decisions: Figuring out the most efficient ways to live sustainably, like choosing foods or habits that align with my values.
A.
Hellen Keller: 30,000 Vitamin A supplements, 10 lives saved
New Incentives: 200 vaccinations, 6 lives saved
Malaria Consortium: 3000 children protected, 10 lives saved
B.
With only 1,000 dollars, I would donate to Hellen Keller International because of the high cost-effectiveness of the charity.
C.
Other issues I would like to consider include biodiversity losses and human rights interventions
A.
I would go for Malaria Consortium, which, from the information I have read, has interventions at the earliest possible age of children, to provide anti-malaria drugs and immunization of infants, and are likely to avert so many deaths. There will be prevention of sickness for millions of children, and probably 50% or more lives saved, of the total population of children. when children are young, their immunity is quite low and it is better to save lives at that tender age. Adults have higher immunity levels, so other interventions can be used with adults.
If immunization against malaria is recommended soon, the impact will be even greater.
B.
With only 1,000 dollars, I would donate to Hellen Keller International because of the low cost of one dollar per vitamin distributed. This would have a greater impact from the available total funding.
C.
Other issues I would like to consider include issues of both Legal and Medical interventions, especially where one must be done without ignoring the other.
Part A
Malaria Consortium: 1957 cases of malaria prevented, with an estimate of 30 deaths averted
Against Malaria Foundation: 27409 cases of malaria prevented, with an estimate of 25 deaths averted
Helen Keller International: 68522 annual doses of Vitamin A provided to children, with an estimate of 39 deaths averted
Part B
I would pick Helen Keller International to donate $1000 to because it is the most cost effective, saving 30% more lives than if I donated to Against Malaria Foundation.
Part C
Financial, career and what and how much to plant in my garden!
A. $362,411.89 would be donated over the course of my lifetime.
I would consider New Incentives-Vaccines as it is a highly rated PREVENTATIVE charity. All are around $5K per life saved, but many people in this forum, and likely at large, have contributed to malaria treatment. However, a portion of this donation (about 33% each?) would also go to Helen Keller Intl (Vitamin A) and Malaria Consortium, as these are all preventative, clinical solutions to diseases in developing countries.
B. If I only had a thousand dollars, I would rather concentrate my efforts all into Malaria Consortium, as the statistics suggest that it is a long-term solution "protect a child from malaria," if more expensive than the $2 Helen Keller rate (this only supplies vitamins for a year).
C. Since I plan to go into academic research in biology, it is paramount to me that I consider a field that would actively save many lives (and preferably develop solutions to new or existing problems at low cost).
Part A
For this exercise, I assumed that my lifetime income is about $1,000,000. Ten percent of my lifetime income is then $100,000. I used GiveWell’s cost-effectiveness data for three top charities to estimate what could be achieved with such a donation. For example, for the Against Malaria Foundation, GiveWell’s models suggest that with $100,000, the charity might prevent around 200,000 cases of malaria and save roughly 30 lives. In the case of the Malaria Consortium, a donation of $100,000 may prevent approximately 150,000 cases of malaria and save about 25 lives. For the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative, I estimated that the same donation could treat around 100,000 cases of schistosomiasis and avert about 15 deaths.
Part B
If I were given $1,000 to donate to only one charity, I would choose the Against Malaria Foundation. I choose this charity because its intervention to prevent malaria is very cost-effective and has strong evidence for saving lives. The Against Malaria Foundation has a simple and proven method to reduce the spread of malaria, which means that even a small donation like $1,000 can have a significant impact in preventing cases and saving lives.
Part C
There are many other decisions in my life where I could use quantitative estimates to compare outcomes. For example, estimating the expected benefits from different job options and how much impact I can have in each role? how much time or money to spend on my education or personal health? How to spend my free time so that I learn the most. By making these estimates, I can compare the outcomes and try to choose the option that brings the most benefit.
Part-A
1,malaria consortium:
3142 child protected 4.4 life saved
2.against malaria foundation:
4400 bed nets 4 life saved
3. Helen Keller international:
11000 dose of supplement 4.4 life saved
4.new incentives:
141 child vaccinated 4.4 life saved
Part-B
with $1000 to donate i'd prefer new initiatives over the other three because
Part_C
Part A:
Nets to prevent Malaria: 1564 nets provided, with 2 deaths prevented.
Cash incentives for routine childhood vaccines: 50 infants vaccinated, with 2 deaths prevented.
Supplements to prevent vitamin A deficiency: 3,910 VAS provided to children, with 2 deaths prevented.
Part B:
If given $1000 dollars to donate to any of the above charities, I would choose the Nets to prevent Malaria because it shows a larger impact achieved based on the $1000 donation.
As well as counting the number of lives saved and protected (from malaria, vitamin A deficiency and vaccine immunity) for 1000 dollars, I think it is also important to consider the long-term effects. For example, malaria chemoprevention and vitamin A supplementation are temporary and require continuous administration to remain effective. In the case of the mosquito nets, it would be useful to know how long they last on average. In contrast, the recommended childhood vaccines, although some may require booster doses, are the option that provides greater assurance of long-term protection.
In addition, the Give Well Top Charities' evaluation of effectiveness is within a two-year period (2021-2023). Unlike the other options, the recommended childhood vaccinations are given only once per person and therefore protect new individuals without redundancy, avoiding the problem of double counting in the estimates. All the other options can (and should) be given to the same person, reducing the total number of different people benefited or saved.
So today I would choose to donate the extra 1000 Dolars to New Incentives.
However, when considering a constant and long-term donation, we should also consider that vaccination has a natural limit once the entire population is fully vaccinated (related to thinking on the margin), whereas for the malaria and vitamin A deficiency initiatives, every dollar counts as it should be continuously supplied. In this sense, it would be valuable to know how close we are to saturation in order to decide how to allocate my annual income.
Malaria Consortium: 12,000 children protected, 24 lives saved.
New incentives: 1,200 children vaccinated, 2 lives saved
Hellen Keller : 109,000 children supplied with Vitamin A supplements, 40 lives saved
B.
With a $120,000 I will donate to Hellen Keller because of its high effectiveness.
Part A
Malaria Consortium: 10,000 cases of malaria prevented, estimated 17 lives saved
Nets to prevent malaria: 4000 cases of malaria prevented, 10 lives saved
Part B.
With only 1,000 dollars, I would donate to the Malaria consortium because I will be working on preventing the disease before it occurs and since the vaccine has a long term impact.
Math + surface level considerations based on the information in the links (I'm new here):
Hellen Keller International
- lives saved: 23
- vitamin A supplements administered: 79 977
- evidence of impact: strong
- has room for more funding
Malaria Consortium
- lives saved: 16
- children seasonally protected from malaria: 11 425
- evidence of impact: exceptionally strong
- has room for more funding
Against Malaria Foundation
- lives saved: 14,5
- anti-malaria nets purchased: 15 995
- iirc the nets last for ~3 years (probably taken into account by GL already)
- it's a well-known charity within the EA community (to the point it's become a meme) so I cautiously assume it gets more funding than the others/is somewhat less neglected
- added factor of insect suffering? (how much suffering does dying from insecticides generate vs the alternatives)
New Incentives
- lives saved: 16
- children vaccinated: 500
- I assume the effects are long-lasting, so even if HKI or MC interventions are cheaper per person, NI vaccinations could be more effective when compared one to one (?)
- evidence of impact: strong
I'm hesitating between HKI and NI, so I'll use the numbers to break the tie/as a correction for my scope neglect and go with Hellen Keller International (they also stated they have more room for funding)
- impact of different career paths I'm considering
- I need to finally do an evaluation of the most effective food so I can just buy beans or legumes in bulk and not make calculations every time I'm grocery shopping
- impact of learning/self-development vs what else I could be doing in this time
A
New incentive 66 infants vaccinated, with an estimate of 8 deaths averted.
B
Helen Keller International demonstrates the highest estimated lives saved per dollar donated among the three charities. With a cost-effectiveness of $3,500 per life saved, the potential impact of saving lives is significantly higher compared to the other two charities. While all charities contribute to meaningful causes, the goal is to maximize the positive outcome with the available donation, and Helen Keller International appears to offer the most significant impact in terms of lives saved per dollar.
C
Track record.
A.
Malaria Consortium: ~45,770 cases of malaria prevented, with an estimate of 64 deaths averted.
Hellen Keller International: ~320,387 vitamin A supplements delivered, with an estimate of 64 lives saved.
New Incentives: ~2,067 infants vaccinated, with an estimate of 64 lives saved.
B.
With just $1,000 I would donate to the Helen Keller International Vitamin A Supplementation program. This program (while labeled "very strong" rather than "exceptionally strong"-- I'll need to investigate why) appears to offer the most impact per dollar spent (most lives saved per contribution). Furthermore, the estimate is that with just $1, an important vitamin A supplement may be provided for an infant. Though this does not necessarily correlate to saving that infant's life, the extremely small dollar amount could have other important implications regarding an increase to quality of life for that individual.
C. Other important life decisions that I would consider generating quantitative estimates and comparing outcomes for: (1) where I would prefer to live/work (between my 2 nationalities), taking into account salaries and social programs, (2) whether or not it makes financial sense to go back to school/earn a graduate degree, taking into account debt incurrence and potential for increased salary/positions with better benefits.
Part A. 114 lives saved [Medicines For Malaria] 163 lives saved [Helen Keller] 114 lives saved [New incentives]
Part B. I would go with Malaria Consortium. Even though the cost effectiveness of Helen Keller international is higher, the impact isn't exceptionally good. Malaria affects a large number of people and the death rate is higher. Moreover the room left for finding for Malaria Consortium is also higher. We have to make sure we help a large number of people with promising impact. This might be contrary to the decisions of other people but it's based on careful observation.
Part C. I'm interested in the field of medicine. I'm willing to work in the same area. Poverty kills people and mostly the reason is lack of resources for treatment and prevention of deceases. We can treat lack of nutrition via medicine which will not only affect individual lives but will also drastically improve economy.
The link provided in the article to estimate total earnings has this input value for the model "Estimated annual raises & cost of living increases". I do not know what this is. How do I calculate it for myself?
Changing this input by 10% results in a roughly 3% change in the result or about $100,000 in total earnings. So the model output is pretty sensitive to this input.
A. Helen Keller INTL, $3,500 per life saved, 10 lives saved
B. Only being able to donate to one place with $1,000 I think I would choose to donate to the Malaria Consortium because it has a focus on children and infants and could save a lot of lives. In cost effectiveness, it costs "$7 to protect a child from Malaria."
A. If I had to choose, I would donate to Malaria Consortium. Based on the information I have reviewed, they focus on interventions for young children, providing anti-malaria drugs and immunization to infants, which has the potential to prevent a significant number of deaths. By targeting children at an early age when their immunity is still developing, the impact can be substantial. Additionally, if there is a recommendation for early malaria immunization, the effect could be even greater. B. With only $1,000 to donate, I would choose to support Helen Keller International. Their distribution of vitamins costs only $1 per dose, which means that with the available funding, I can reach a larger number of people and have a greater overall impact. C. There are other decisions in life where it would be beneficial to generate quantitative estimates and compare outcomes. For example, when considering legal and medical interventions, it would be valuable to assess the potential benefits and drawbacks of each option to make an informed decision without neglecting any important factors.
Against Malaria Foundation: 77,000 cases of malaria prevented, with an estimated 12 lives saved.
I would choose the Against Malaria Foundation because it is one of the highest-impact charities on the list. The effectiveness is exceptionally high and would allow more lives to be saved compared to my other choice, the Malaria Consortium. It also addresses a problem that is larger in scale compared to my other choice, the Helen Keller Foundation with over 600,000 people dying of malaria annually. Therefore, the numbers themselves state that the Against Malaria Foundation is where I should direct my donation.
A. In line with the goals and objectives of e.a, I feel contributing to the malaria consortium, Helen Keller international and the new incentive platforms, which all are geared towards charities in the world,with respect to various dimensions and aspects regarding people's health and advancement, would be of immense benefits and should be supported.
B. I would support the new incentive scheme, because of the large number of people,whom owing to religious, cultural and certain social factors,have been denied certain basic immunizations,which if they were given,would have saved them from certain disabilities and health defamatory state,they are currently managing.
C. Other aspects of my life,which I would work on,includes issues as regards climate change,which is already an existential crisis,as the data and other analytical outcomes, would I continually work, towards effectively and efficiently understanding,and using it's outcomes,with the aim of positively impacting our societies and the world at large.
A. Malaria Consortium: 134,683 cases of malaria prevented, with an estimate of 26 deaths averted.
Against Malaria Foundation: 134,683 cases of malaria prevented, with an estimate of 34 deaths averted.
Helen Keller International: 942,785 delivery of a vitamin A supplement, with an estimate of 269 deaths averted.
B. Helen Keller International: would be my pick. Simply because this is the most cost effective donation to impact most number of lives.
C. Most consumptions on goods.
Part A
Malaria Consortium: 42,470 cases of malaria prevented, with an estimate of 59 deaths averted.
Helen Keller International: 297,322 vitamin delivered, with an estimate of 74 deaths averted.
Against Malaria Foundation: 59,464 nets provided, with an estimate of 54 deaths averted.
Part B
The charity I would give $1,000 to is Helen Keller International because it is the most cost-effective. It enables a large amount of vitamins to be provided for little expenses, and this economic stability enables the actions undertaken by this charity to last over time. So I believe that Helen Keller International is not only the most effective instantly, but also the one that can last over time, since it requires less donations than the others for more impactful results.
Part C
I would probably focus on human rights, in particular humanitarian law and examine which intervention methods are the most cost-effective in case of war and armed conflicts.
In this exercise, we’ll imagine that you’re planning to donate to a charity to improve global health, and explore how much you could do with that donation.
GiveWell is an effective altruism-inspired organization which attempts to identify outstanding donation opportunities in global health and development. Using this tool to estimate your future income and Givewell’s reports on their top charities, try and work out what you could achieve if you donated 10% of your lifetime income to one of these charities.
If you’re short on time, here’s a sheet with information about three top GiveWell charities. If you’d like to explore further, check out GiveWell’s cost effectiveness models.
Complete this exercise for three GiveWell charities, writing down your answer like, e.g.:
Malaria Consortium: X cases of malaria prevented, with an estimate of N deaths averted
In the last section, you ended up with a few different options. Now imagine you were given $1,000 to donate to only one of these charities.
There's a difficult judgment to be made now: since you have to pick, which charity would you donate to to do the most good?
Now write down your answer to the following questions:
Which charity do you pick to donate to? Why?
What are other decisions in your life that you might consider generating quantitative estimates and comparing outcomes for?
Part A
New Incentives, they estimate $5,000 per life saved, so I’d be able to save 60 lives
Helen Keller Intl, they estimate $3,500 per life saved, so I’d be able to save 85 lives
Malaria Consortium, they estimate $5,000 per life saved, so I’d be able to save 60 lives
Part B
I would choose Helen Keller Intl. because of the small cost ($1) of a vitamin A supplement and the lower cost-effectiveness for life saved, and also because there is room for more funding.