GPI is the Global Priorities Institute at Oxford University, often associated with the EA movement.
EA - Effective Altruism. I just reached out to a bunch of 'contact us' emails, and they referred me to a guy named Elliot Teperman (I live in Australia, so it may be different for you). He is the one who told me the teams for Effective Altruism are quite small and therefore have to prioritise projects, which is something I completely understand.
However, it surely has to be possible to organise something like this. Right?
Why is everyone so negative about this? Isn't this a philosophy forum? Aren't you supposed to give your reasons, rather than just hating and assuming it's bad without justification?
I'd like to point out that the people who hate on the animal rights movement supported by the EA peoples are also the sorts who think veganism is bad because they have immediate negative feelings towards it and then just assume its bad without justification. What exactly makes you any better?
Thank you very much for that. Very insightful and something I had never thought about.
Out of curiosity, considering there is substantial evidence that the world is fundamentally getting better (I can provide sources if required, however the EA founders themselves acknowledge this), I may be able to do more potential good in the future if I save, but there also may be less people who need the help. It also provides a form of temptation, where I may be willing to take some of that money in the future. In some sense, it's using money less efficiently to spend now, but there is also more need for it, and it's more likely to actually do something good. Considering this, how much should I put in my savings, and how much should I give directly to charity?
Thank you for the reply. I would personally disagree that there are not significant corruptions within top charities (look up the scandals in Oxfam and UN for examples, alongside the ones in Deaton's book), however even if the big names are not corrupt with a capital C, or at least not fundamentally corrupt, even just examples of how they are not as good as top charities would be awesome. This is supposed to help me give examples of why people should stop donating to relatively average charities (which is virtually all of the big names) and instead do the limited research to start giving to top charities instead. They are also useful debate points. I have my own, but I need more.
Hello. I forgot to mention, my email address is [email protected]. I am not brilliant at responding to forums, so if you really want to get in touch that is worth knowing. This is not my main email address, so I will still be slow, but probably faster than on this site. I am new to this, so I need to make sure that giving away my contacts isn't a remarkably stupid thing to do, so if things go well maybe I can give my main and this will be faster, but not yet.
Hello
Yes, apologies for any inconvenience.
GPI is the Global Priorities Institute at Oxford University, often associated with the EA movement.
EA - Effective Altruism. I just reached out to a bunch of 'contact us' emails, and they referred me to a guy named Elliot Teperman (I live in Australia, so it may be different for you). He is the one who told me the teams for Effective Altruism are quite small and therefore have to prioritise projects, which is something I completely understand.
However, it surely has to be possible to organise something like this. Right?
Why is everyone so negative about this? Isn't this a philosophy forum? Aren't you supposed to give your reasons, rather than just hating and assuming it's bad without justification?
I'd like to point out that the people who hate on the animal rights movement supported by the EA peoples are also the sorts who think veganism is bad because they have immediate negative feelings towards it and then just assume its bad without justification. What exactly makes you any better?
Awesome. Cheers
Hello
Thank you very much for that. Very insightful and something I had never thought about.
Out of curiosity, considering there is substantial evidence that the world is fundamentally getting better (I can provide sources if required, however the EA founders themselves acknowledge this), I may be able to do more potential good in the future if I save, but there also may be less people who need the help. It also provides a form of temptation, where I may be willing to take some of that money in the future. In some sense, it's using money less efficiently to spend now, but there is also more need for it, and it's more likely to actually do something good. Considering this, how much should I put in my savings, and how much should I give directly to charity?
Thank you
Jack
Hello
Thank you for the reply. I would personally disagree that there are not significant corruptions within top charities (look up the scandals in Oxfam and UN for examples, alongside the ones in Deaton's book), however even if the big names are not corrupt with a capital C, or at least not fundamentally corrupt, even just examples of how they are not as good as top charities would be awesome. This is supposed to help me give examples of why people should stop donating to relatively average charities (which is virtually all of the big names) and instead do the limited research to start giving to top charities instead. They are also useful debate points. I have my own, but I need more.
Cheers
Jack
Hello. I forgot to mention, my email address is [email protected]. I am not brilliant at responding to forums, so if you really want to get in touch that is worth knowing. This is not my main email address, so I will still be slow, but probably faster than on this site. I am new to this, so I need to make sure that giving away my contacts isn't a remarkably stupid thing to do, so if things go well maybe I can give my main and this will be faster, but not yet.