This is a special post for quick takes by Francis. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
Comment Permalink
Update (January 28): Marco Rubio has now issued a temporary waiver for "humanitarian programs that provide life-saving medicine, medical services, food, shelter and subsistence assistance."[1]
PEPFAR's funding was recently paused as a result of the recent executive order on foreign aid.[2] (It was previously reauthorized until March 25, 2025.[3]) If not exempted, this would pause PEPFAR's work for three months, effective immediately.
Marco Rubio has issued waivers for some forms of aid, including emergency food aid, and has the authority to issue a similar waiver for PEPFAR, allowing it to resume work immediately.[4] Rubio has previously expressed (relatively generic) positive sentiments about PEPFAR on Twitter,[5] and I don't have specific reason to think he's opposed to PEPFAR, as opposed to simply not caring strongly enough to give it a waiver without anyone encouraging him to.
I think it is worth considering calling your representatives to suggest that they encourage Rubio to give PEPFAR a waiver, similarly to the waiver he provided to programs giving emergency food aid. I have a lot of uncertainty here — in particular, I'm not sure whether this is likely to persuade Rubio — but I think it is fairly unlikely to make things actively worse. I think the argument in favor of calling is likely stronger for people who are represented by Republicans in Congress; I expect Rubio would care much more about pressure from his own party than about pressure from the Democrats.
- ^
https://apnews.com/article/trump-foreign-assistance-freeze-684ff394662986eb38e0c84d3e73350b
- ^
My primary source for this quick take is Kelsey Piper's Twitter thread, as well as the Tweets it quotes and the articles it and the quoted Tweet link to. For a brief discussion of what PEPFAR is, see my previous Quick Take.
- ^
https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/pepfars-short-term-reauthorization-sets-an-uncertain-course-for-its-long-term-future/
PEPFAR, a US program which funds HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment in the developing world, is in danger of not being reauthorized.[1] (The deadline is September 30th, although my current understanding is that even if the House of Representatives misses the deadline, it could still be reauthorized, there would just be a delay in funding.) Over the course of its existence, it's estimated as saving ~25 million lives[2] for a little over $100 billion, and my current understanding is that (even if the lives saved number is an overestimate) it's one of the most cost-effective things the US government does.
I think it might be worth calling your representative to encourage them to reauthorize PEPFAR, particularly if they've indicated that they're uncertain of how to vote or might vote against it. My main uncertainty here is that I'm not sure how likely calling your representative is to actually change their mind, but I suspect this is fairly tractable compared to most forms of lobbying since it's literally just asking them to reauthorize a program that already exists (as opposed to asking them to pass a new law, majorly change how a program works, etc.)
- ^
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/05/president-emergency-global-aids-program-00113796
- ^
https://www.state.gov/pepfar/ (note that some sources think this is an overestimate - e.g. the comments section here thinks it could be more like 6 million as a low estimate, which would make it not competitive with GiveWell top charities, though still way more cost-effective than a lot of things the US government does (and I currently don't expect that if the program were eliminated the money would be redirected to something more cost effective))
Constituent pressure (via emails/calls) work, but the issue is that its the hard right within the GOP blocking PEPFAR renewal over imaginary abortion fears. If you live in a city (and probably SF/NY at that), your representative/senator is a Democrat who already agrees with you that letting poor Africans die of AIDS is morally atrocious and that PEPFAR should be renewed.
It's probably worth writing in anyway, but note that if you were originally from a red state/district before moving to where you are now, write in to your home state/district's GOP congressman for maximum effectiveness.
Curated and popular this week
·
Or on the types of prioritization, their strengths, pitfalls, and how EA should balance them
The cause prioritization landscape in EA is changing. Prominent groups have shut down, others have been founded, and everyone is trying to figure out how to prepare for AI. This is the first in a series of posts examining the state of cause prioritization and proposing strategies for moving forward.
Executive Summary
* Performing prioritization work has been one of the main tasks, and arguably achievements, of EA.
* We highlight three types of prioritization: Cause Prioritization, Within-Cause (Intervention) Prioritization, and Cross-Cause (Intervention) Prioritization.
* We ask how much of EA prioritization work falls in each of these categories:
* Our estimates suggest that, for the organizations we investigated, the current split is 89% within-cause work, 2% cross-cause, and 9% cause prioritization.
* We then explore strengths and potential pitfalls of each level:
* Cause prioritization offers a big-picture view for identifying pressing problems but can fail to capture the practical nuances that often determine real-world success.
* Within-cause prioritization focuses on a narrower set of interventions with deeper more specialised analysis but risks missing higher-impact alternatives elsewhere.
* Cross-cause prioritization broadens the scope to find synergies and the potential for greater impact, yet demands complex assumptions and compromises on measurement.
* See the Summary Table below to view the considerations.
* We encourage reflection and future work on what the best ways of prioritizing are and how EA should allocate resources between the three types.
* With this in mind, we outline eight cruxes that sketch what factors could favor some types over others.
* We also suggest some potential next steps aimed at refining our approach to prioritization by exploring variance, value of information, tractability, and the
·
[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
·
I wanted to share a small but important challenge I've encountered as a student engaging with Effective Altruism from a lower-income country (Nigeria), and invite thoughts or suggestions from the community.
Recently, I tried to make a one-time donation to one of the EA-aligned charities listed on the Giving What We Can platform. However, I discovered that I could not donate an amount less than $5.
While this might seem like a minor limit for many, for someone like me — a student without a steady income or job, $5 is a significant amount.
To provide some context:
According to Numbeo, the average monthly income of a Nigerian worker is around $130–$150, and students often rely on even less — sometimes just $20–$50 per month for all expenses. For many students here, having $5 "lying around" isn't common at all; it could represent a week's worth of meals or transportation.
I personally want to make small, one-time donations whenever I can, rather than commit to a recurring pledge like the 10% Giving What We Can pledge, which isn't feasible for me right now. I also want to encourage members of my local EA group, who are in similar financial situations, to practice giving through small but meaningful donations.
In light of this, I would like to:
* Recommend that Giving What We Can (and similar platforms) consider allowing smaller minimum donation amounts to make giving more accessible to students and people in lower-income countries.
* Suggest that more organizations be added to the platform, to give donors a wider range of causes they can support with their small contributions.
Uncertainties:
* Are there alternative platforms or methods that allow very small one-time donations to EA-aligned charities?
* Is there a reason behind the $5 minimum that I'm unaware of, and could it be adjusted to be more inclusive?
I strongly believe that cultivating a habit of giving, even with small amounts, helps build a long-term culture of altruism — and it would
PEPFAR, a US program which funds HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment in the developing world, is in danger of not being reauthorized.[1] (The deadline is September 30th, although my current understanding is that even if the House of Representatives misses the deadline, it could still be reauthorized, there would just be a delay in funding.) Over the course of its existence, it's estimated as saving ~25 million lives[2] for a little over $100 billion, and my current understanding is that (even if the lives saved number is an overestimate) it's one of the most cost-effective things the US government does.
I think it might be worth calling your representative to encourage them to reauthorize PEPFAR, particularly if they've indicated that they're uncertain of how to vote or might vote against it. My main uncertainty here is that I'm not sure how likely calling your representative is to actually change their mind, but I suspect this is fairly tractable compared to most forms of lobbying since it's literally just asking them to reauthorize a program that already exists (as opposed to asking them to pass a new law, majorly change how a program works, etc.)
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/05/president-emergency-global-aids-program-00113796
https://www.state.gov/pepfar/ (note that some sources think this is an overestimate - e.g. the comments section here thinks it could be more like 6 million as a low estimate, which would make it not competitive with GiveWell top charities, though still way more cost-effective than a lot of things the US government does (and I currently don't expect that if the program were eliminated the money would be redirected to something more cost effective))
Thanks so much for sharing this. Not following US politics closely I'd missed this. It would be so tragic if this wasn't renewed :(