Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Comment Permalink
WilliamKiely3
2
1

I just want to highlight that Geoffrey's comment is basically a truism within EA, yet somehow has 9 karma with 11 votes, and only 2 agreement karma with 7 votes at the time I'm coming across it. So a nontrivial fraction of EA Forum users voting on it disagreed with it, despite it essentially being a truism.

This seems unideal to me. It also seems to be happening more in my experience, which lead me to ask the question: Has karma/agreement voting behavior on the Forum changed?

Reply
See in context
by david_reinstein
2 min read 12

113

Effective givingClimate changeEarning to giveGiving Pledge
Frontpage
This is a linkpost for https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/14/business/jeff-bezos-charity/index.html

For a change, some good  billionaire philanthropy news

Caveats:

  • It seems to have been in response to the question "Do you plan to give away the majority of your wealth in your lifetime?"; I don't know whether he encouraged them to ask this
  • I suspect this is not entirely 'news'; iirc he has made noises like this in the past

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos plans to give away the majority of his $124 billion net worth during his lifetime, telling CNN in an exclusive interview he will devote the bulk of his wealth to fighting climate change and supporting people who can unify humanity in the face of deep social and political divisions.

This seems potentially promising:  he seems to prioritize effectiveness.

“The hard part is figuring out how to do it in a levered way,” he said, implying that even as he gives away his billions, he is still looking to maximize his return. “It’s not easy. Building Amazon was not easy. It took a lot of hard work, a bunch of very smart teammates, hard-working teammates, and I’m finding — and I think Lauren is finding the same thing — that charity, philanthropy, is very similar.”
“There are a bunch of ways that I think you could do ineffective things, too,” he added. “So you have to think about it carefully and you have to have brilliant people on the team.”

Bezos’ methodical approach to giving stands in sharp contrast to that of his ex-wife, the philanthropist MacKenzie Scott, who recently gave away nearly $4 billion to 465 organizations in the span of less than a year.

In terms of specifics, the Earth Fund seems relatively good, to me:

Bezos has committed $10 billion over 10 years, or about 8% of his current net worth, to the Bezos Earth Fund, which Sánchez co-chairs. Among its priorities are reducing the carbon footprint of construction-grade cement and steel; pushing financial regulators to consider climate-related risks; advancing data and mapping technologies to monitor carbon emissions; and building natural, plant-based carbon sinks on a large scale.

I’m less enthusiastic about the “Bezos Courage and Civility Award” which seems celebrity-driven (as much as I love Dolly Parton) and perhaps less likely to target global priorities/effectiveness.

113

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in
Comments12


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
JackM24
11
2

One takeaway for EA might be to reduce the proportion of EA funds going towards climate change, although I suspect this is fairly low already.

Otherwise, is this a particularly good time for EA leaders to try to engage with Bezos and give him ideas for high-impact giving opportunities?

Reply
Ozzie Gooen19
6
0

Another option is to consider making new EA-guided nonprofits  in either climate change or other Bezos cause areas. It might be easier to funding in these areas now, so a 40% difference in efficiency could be scaled a lot. 

Reply
Luca Righetti 🔸14
2
0

In case it's useful, Founders Pledge wrote a report last year [November, 2021]  that in large part is focused on the implications of Bezos' climate spending (Navigating the changing landscape of climate philanthropy):

Climate philanthropy by foundations was at roughly $2b last year and is poised to increase significantly, probably almost doubling this year, with large new pledges (such as Bezos’ Earth Fund) coming into effect.

It gives breakdowns by regions and sectors based on Climate Works' 2021 funding trends and adding on top in-house estimates of Bezos' commitments.

Climate Works has also recently published its update on 2022 funding trends [October, 2022]. Key takeaway:

In recent years, foundation funding for climate change mitigation has more than tripled, growing from $900 million in 2015 to more than $3 billion in 2021 (Figure 3). Between 2020 and 2021 alone, it increased by more than 40%, driven in part by the arrival of major new donors such as the Bezos Earth Fund

Reply
david_reinstein10
3
0

Obviously the shadow of the FTX thing, fairly or unfairly, makes the timing difficult in some ways. (Or maybe that’s what you were hinting at)

Reply
Geoffrey Miller23
16
4

Once the FTX debacle gets resolved, and the PR blowback dies down, it might be useful for EAs to try to nudge Bezos to broaden his cause areas -- on the principle that tackling climate change may be moderately important in scope and severity, but is far from neglected, and seems rather intractable politically.

It would be great to see some of the Amazon money going to higher-impact cause areas.

Reply
Ozzie Gooen11
5
0

Also, we might be able to help make spending more effective even within these areas. 

Reply
david_reinstein9
4
0

Or maybe focus on broadening globally (rather than mainly focusing on US leaders/celebrities and US-focused interventions like this Seattle homeless shelter)


Of course there will be some political and consumer pressure to 'give at home' in the country they are based in etc. But that non-rationalist argument could be countered by other non/semi-rationalist arguments like 'most products are manufactured outside the US', and 'raw materials come from the globe', and 'poor countries tend to suffer the most from climate change'.

Reply
WilliamKiely3
2
1

I just want to highlight that Geoffrey's comment is basically a truism within EA, yet somehow has 9 karma with 11 votes, and only 2 agreement karma with 7 votes at the time I'm coming across it. So a nontrivial fraction of EA Forum users voting on it disagreed with it, despite it essentially being a truism.

This seems unideal to me. It also seems to be happening more in my experience, which lead me to ask the question: Has karma/agreement voting behavior on the Forum changed?

Reply
Brad West🔸3
2
0

I didn't vote in any way on the comment, but it's plausible you could have different strategic choices. You could try to shift a large donor to cause areas outside of existing preferences to more effective ones (as is the EA "truism") or you could try to discover and endorse the most effective charities within existing preferences. The latter seems to be discussed by Ozzie Gooen in this thread.

Perhaps disagree votes were along the lines that they did not think lobbying for different cause areas would work with Bezos.

Reply
WilliamKiely3
1
0

Good points. Still, I feel like the phrase "it might be useful for EAs to try to nudge" is so qualified as to be hard for readers to disagree with offhand. It's not like he said "it will definitely be useful for EAs to invest a lot of effort into trying to convince Bezos to grant to some drastically different causes."

Unless someone spends a significant amount of time researching this question to be confident that trying to nudge Bezos to give in different cause areas is a bad idea, it seems hard to know if that's a bad idea, and thus hard to "disagree-karma" a comment that merely suggests it might be useful.

Reply
Ivy Mazzola1
0
0

I think that might not even be necessary for some time tbh (see this comment)

Reply
Ivy Mazzola8
5
0

supporting people who can unify humanity in the face of deep social and political divisions.

 

Ooh, that sounds suspiciously like:

I imagine someone who goes out of their way to mention "unification in face of social and political divisions" would be bullish on all these causes even if they were keeping it short and sweet for the journalists or haven't heard of these causes yet. EA ideas really aren't weird so let's just get him some donation opportunities :)

[edit: and to clarify, even if these aren't your top cause areas, this saves Open Phil's dollars for the ones you might care about more. Then a year later we can get Bezos to look at other things as needed. Prob better to not try to make too big of asks at first, given the SBF scandal]

Reply
More from david_reinstein
30
Unjournal evaluating 1+ research output per relevant ~EA-funded organization: next steps
david_reinstein
· · 4m read
3
3
48
“Pivotal questions”: an Unjournal trial initiative
david_reinstein
· · 8m read
2
2
31
Unjournal: "Research with potential for impact" database
david_reinstein
· · 1m read
3
3
View more
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
97
E2G help available
Will Kirkpatrick
· · 3m read
3
3
57
Donation swap with me please?
Q
Mitchell Laughlin🔸
· · 1m read
1
1
151
Projects I'd like to see in the GHW meta space
Melanie Basnak🔸
· · 8m read
3
3
View more