UK Medical Student.
Thanks for the reply, that answers my question perfectly :)
Apologies if I’ve missed this in the post, but I don’t think it discusses a potential decrease in the marginal value of LLINs and SMC due to RTS,S, instead focusing on a comparison between LLIN and SMC vs RTS,S.
Do GiveWell intend to explore the effect on marginal value at a later point in time / in more detail? It seems plausible to me that despite LLIN and SMC being more cost effective than RTS,S, a decrease in their marginal value could mean that donors would prefer to donate to other GiveWell top charities over AMF.
I’m not very well versed on what good methods would be to increase migration, but I think there’s need for an international organisation that advocates for / researches policy change towards more lenient immigration policies, focused on making it easier to migrate from the poorest to the richest countries.
For example, such an org could try to identify which rich country would be the best within which to push for more lenient immigration rules.
I hope to do a post about this at some point after having given the idea more thought.
In my opinion, the public seems to dislike the idea of rejuvenation biotechnology, but doesn't dislike it enough that public opinion would significantly hamper the progress of this field.
I think the billionaire space race may be a good example of the public disliking weird stuff that billionaires are doing, but public opinion not significantly impacting their ability to do the weird stuff.
I am also not too worried about bad PR keeping good scientists away since I think high salaries should help to overcome their fears / misunderstandings surrounding anti-ageing research.
Thanks for your comment.
I'm agnostic (EDIT) I personally do not think funding certain types of research within anti-ageing research could still have similar EV to EA priorities despite the EV being lower than it was before, but I think this is plausible.
I'm also hopeful that Altos Labs is more open and collaborative than Calico Labs.
While I'm seeing some criticism of the idea that billionaires want to live longer, I think it's unlikely to be widespread enough or draw enough attention to noticeably damage Altos Labs, or cause much further damage to anti-ageing research in general.
Yes you're right, now that I think about Harrison's comment, I think both a) "the industry is already/now getting lots of money from billionaires, so the marginal value of donating additional money is smaller" and b) donating money to anti-ageing research will lead to billionaires donating less money to anti-ageing research.
The first! (And not the second). I’m not 100% sure if ‘subsidising billionaires’ is the correct term but I mean that money donated towards aging is probably going to be donated by billionaires anyway.
Same! I think neglectedness is more useful for identifying impactful “just add more funding” style interventions, but is less useful for identifying impactful careers and other types of interventions since focusing on neglectedness systematically misses high leverage careers and interventions.
Technological developments in the biotech / pharma industry are notoriously expensive, and my (fairly subjective) impression is that the industry is riddled with market failures.
Especially when applied to particularly pressing problems like pandemic prevention / preparedness, infectious diseases in LMICs, vaccines, ageing and chronic pain, I think EA for-profits and non-profits in this industry could absorb 100 million dollars of annual funding while providing high expected value in terms of social impact.
FWIW, I do think Reddit neoliberalism has important differences to EA (mainly that it has a strong preference for free markets and deregulation), but I think this is still compatible with considering Reddit neoliberalism to be “close to EA but not EA”.