Posts
Comments
I strongly suspect the kidney donations in question are mostly to other Jews, and maybe mostly to other Orthodox Jews. The organization mentioned in the video is Renewal, which "helps facilitate kidney matches within the Jewish community."
And with regard to Matnat Chaim: "In a report aired on Israel’s Channel 2 Sunday, the Health Ministry said the policy leads to possible discrimination, noting that at least half of Matnat Chaim’s donors request Jewish recipients."
In general, Orthodox Jews are very altruistic towards other Jews, and especially other Orthodox Jews. However, the impression I have is that they tend to be tribalistic and unlikely to favor expanded moral circles. So I don't think they're a good target audience for EA.
(I grew up Orthodox Jewish, but I'm now an atheist.)
It looks like GiveWell may have advertised on more than 35 podcasts! They talk about their podcast advertising here and here.
80,000 Hours is not a US registered nonprofit. CEA accepted donations for them for EA Giving Tuesday with arrangements we made in advance. Around half of the nonprofits on our list required similar arrangements.
FHI is not a US registered nonprofit either and was not eligible for receiving EA Giving Tuesday donations.
As far as I know Effective Altruism Foundation and Founder's Pledge are totally different nonprofits.
Effective Altruism Foundation runs a few programs, including Center on Long-term Risk: https://ea-foundation.org/projects/
I'd suggest reading prior discussions of the so-called "poor meat eater problem."
I see a few problems with this argument. (These are mostly not original ideas.)
- This argument would likely reflect badly on EA and/or animal advocacy if it became more common and more public. Unpopular arguments may be worth it if the benefits of arguing them outweigh the costs, but that seems unlikely here.
- If you believe farmed animal welfare is the cause area that warrants the highest priority, then you should be looking for the most cost-effective interventions within that cause area. There are interventions in this area that seem very cost-effective, such as corporate campaigns, and it seems unlikely that persuading EAs working in global poverty that their interventions are harmful, or pursuing human population control interventions instead, is anywhere near as cost-effective.
- This analysis looks at one potential flow-through effect of EA global poverty interventions, and does not consider any others that could potentially benefit animals:
- Good things can lead to more good things, e.g. Open Phil has recommended $80 million in effective grants towards farmed animal welfare, but they would not exist if GiveWell had not established their credibility in global poverty. (Open Phil started out as a GiveWell project called GiveWell Labs.)
- Solving human problems may free up resources for solving animal welfare problems.
- Increases in human population and/or consumption may lead to decreases in wild animal populations, which may reduce wild animal suffering.
- It's better if EAs working on global poverty and animal welfare are cooperative rather than antagonistic.
Hi Jacob. If you complete our sign-up form or our pledge form, then you'll be added to our mailing list and should receive reminders in future years.
- Sign-up form: https://eagiv.org/signup
- Pledge form: https://eagiv.org/pledge
You may also want to add a filter to direct emails from contact@eagivingtuesday.org into your primary inbox.
https://pandemic.metaculus.com/ works for me. The link you have is for https://www.pandemic.metaculus.com/ though, which does not work. Maybe that's the problem?
Because Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security is part of Johns Hopkins University rather than its own US registered nonprofit, it may not be feasible to create a Facebook fundraiser for them.
I think the main potential benefits of GiveDirectly's COVID-19 response are (a) good PR for cash transfers, (b) an experiment to learn from, (c) bringing in more donors, and (d) persuading people to stay home rather than work. In terms of benefits for recipients though, it seems much less cost-effective than cash transfers to the extreme poor.
Peter Hurford made a related argument in To Inspire People to Give, Be Public About Your Giving, though it's more focused on maximizing impact vs helping your friends find fulfillment.