All of drbrake's Comments + Replies

"it does matter that there is one credible environmental org aligned with Democrats (there are also Republican climate orgs, like ClearPath) that pushes for it, it can make the difference between this being entirely dismissed as fossil fuel or Manchin demand to being an option that has support from clearly climate-motivated actors. "... actually, this is just one more reason why what the CATF is doing is retrograde. Supporting and aiding development of CCS for, say, cement making is OK in my book and there is plenty of room for experiments there that are d... (read more)

This is the kind of thing I would like to see more of. I would not invest myself because all investments seem to be in individual projects - I would want to be able to invest in some fashion in a "basket" of companies and/or projects (ideally through a large, well-known investment company like Vanguard...)

I know your long run goals are the least "binding" but I would encourage you to be a little more cautious and evidence-based in your approach to growth as an intervention. Economic growth clearly offers benefits overall in developing countries but it would surely be safer to say your objective should be to study the relationship between economic growth and human development and work to understand the circumstances in which aid that enhances economic growth in particular circumstances is more effective than alternative forms of aid.

You've reminded me about Dollar Street: https://www.gapminder.org/dollar-street/matrix which does the same thing as Children Just Like Me but online and interactive.

2
Julia_Wise
Wow, that's a great resource. The book is different in tone in that it doesn't explicitly point out things that are lacking (like running water) in a given household, and I don't remember picking up on the class differences as a kid - partly because we looked most at the children with prettiest clothes! So definitely more in the "global solidarity" vein more than the "look how different things are" vein.

Hadn't thought of that - seems a likely explanation!

The discussion about Fistulas was here https://blog.givewell.org/2008/08/20/fistula/

In one of the discussions, a founder of Operation Fistula turned up. It's a horrible-sounding condition - described in the disability weighting as "has an abnormal opening between her vagina and rectum causing flatulence and feces to escape through the vagina. The person gets infections in her vagina, and has pain when urinating." It's caused if you don't have access to a C section when giving birth and can be remedied for $288. (The report's a little unclear, suggesting that the operation value lasts for 10 years - perhaps it stops working? Perhaps the lifespan of typical sufferers is in any case low?) Anyway, worth looking at if you are interested in this area.

2
Julia_Wise
I wonder if it's because some women have subsequent births that re-open the problem?
1
drbrake
The discussion about Fistulas was here https://blog.givewell.org/2008/08/20/fistula/

Thanks for the additional readings. I think Paul Dolan is asking the right questions. I am disappointed that after a promising initial discussion eight years ago, Holden doesn't seem to have spoken again on the subject and to the best of my knowledge there is still no way on GiveWell to put different weights on "impact" to give different results.

I don't understand your last paragraph though. DALYs don't seem to measure economic effects on others at all, so if you do start to consider them wouldn't that be a big argument to make some DALYs negative?

1
rk
Sorry, I didn't communicate what I meant well there. It might be the case that DALYs somewhat faithfully track both (a) the impact of conditions on subjective wellbeing and (b) the impact of conditions on economic contribution, even if they're not explicitly intended to track (b). It might also be the case that efforts to extend DALYs to more faithfully track (a) for things that are worse than death would mean that they tracked (b) less well in those cases. Then, it could be the case that it's better to stick with the current way of doing things. I don't actually think the above is particularly likely (and yet less so after writing it out) and even in the case that it captures something correct for some moral frameworks, it probably looks different under others.

NB smile.amazon.com works like smile.amazon.co.uk. Having written to Amazon Smile they responded: " We are currently working on expanding the AmazonSmile program to other countries.

You are correct in stating that customers can currently support organizations in one of the 50 United States, Germany, Austria, or the United Kingdom."

And moreover it doesn't just improve vision, it removes a source of intense pain.

A note on OPIS - might I suggest finding a way to separate your work on animal suffering from that on human suffering - at least for potential funders? Of course I can understand that you see work on both as important but there will be potential donors/supporters (myself included) who would be very inclined to support your advocacy work on easing provision of opioids for humans but who don't see the relief of animal suffering as a priority and who would not wish their support for one to be used for the other.

1
jonleighton
Apologies for replying only now. We are happy to dedicate funds to a specific cause area when requested, such as advocacy for pain relief, which in any case represents much of our current focus. Even more general advocacy to promote the ethic of non-suffering in policy-making and decision-making invariably puts much of the emphasis on human suffering and pain relief.

I applaud you for your initiative in taking this forward and I do think you seem to have identified an important gap in the existing EA approaches. They appear to see lives saved as the key metric where I would at least offer potential donors/actors the chance to prioritise life quality. I wonder, however (and apologies if this has already been discussed and considered - if it has please point me to it) whether it might not be still more cost-effective to target easily cured very painful illnesses like Trachoma. See this for example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16019692 which finds providing surgery costs from I$13 to I$78 per DALY averted.