I have a degree in chemistry and I can fact-check this post as true and that Eliezer is, at best, drawing up bad analogies and most likely just completely misunderstands chemical bonding in biology. 

I also think most people with a high school knowledge of chemistry and biology would have been able to figure this out with a bit of thinking; I'd like to think I would have if I had known Eliezer had been writing this. I thus am a bit disappointed that this wasn't pointed out sooner.

This is a very nice post. Keep up the great work Joy

Correct. Dustin and Cari mostly defer to OP. But the people at OP aren't random. The selection of leadership at OP (Holden/Alex) are very much because of Dustin/Cari. FWIW, on the whole, I'm very thankful for them. Without them, EA would look quite a lot worse on the whole, including for animals.

I largely think that Israel has a large duty here to protect its citizenry from the terrorists who want them dead. I don't want sanctions imposed on Israel. I think they are largely "in the right" and that the majority of the blame for the death and despair in the region is due to Arab states/Palestinian leadership wanting to wipe Israel off the map. Longer-term peace in the region will only result when there is an acceptance that there will be a Jewish state called Israel approximately where it is now.

I strongly agree with this post and strongly upvoted it. I also talked a lot with Ariel in the making of this post. I think the arguments are good and I think EA in general should be focusing a lot more on animal welfare than GHW.

That said, I think it's important to note that "EA" doesn't own the money being given away by Open Phil. It's Dustin/Cari's money that is being given away and Open Phil was set up (by them, in a joint venture between Givewell and Good Ventures) to advise them where their money should go and they are inspired/wish to give away their money by EA principles. 

The people at Open Phil are heavily influenced by Dustin/Cari's values so it isn't surprising that the people at Open Phil might value animals less than the general movement and if Dustin/Cari don't want to give their money to non-human animal causes, that's well within their rights. The "EA movement", however you define it, doesn't get to control the money and there are good reasons for this.

Like @MathiasKB, I want to generally encourage people to see how they can affect the funding landscape, primarily via their own donations as opposed to simply telling other people how they should donate. A very unstable equilibrium would result from a bunch of people steering and not a lot of people rowing.

Because I think it would be a bad idea and a terrible incentive that would ultimately lead to more terrorism in the region and several more October 7ths.

I'm not exactly sure what the best course of action is to counter Hamas, but a ceasefire doesn't seem right. 

Given how much the community has grown, isn't this just what you'd expect? There are way more people than there were in 2016, which pushes down how weird the community is on average due to regression to the mean. The obvious solution is that EA should just be smaller and more selected for altruism (which I think would be an error).

Sure, I'm not suggesting we become smaller but I don't think it's completely either or. A bit more altruistic pressure/examples seems good.

I think the simplest explanation for this is that there are just more roles with well-paying counterfactuals e.g. ml engineering. Excluding those roles, after you adjust for the cost of living, most EA roles aren't particularly well paid e.g. Open Phil salaries aren't much higher than the median in SF  and maybe less than the BART (Bay Area metro) police.

SF is among the most expensive cities in the world. Above median salary in the most expensive parts of the world seems quite high for non-profits. I think the actual simplest explanation is that EA got billions of dollars (a lot of which is now gone) and that had upward pressure on salaries.

Again, my comment mainly answered the question of why we don't have a robust earning to give ecosystem in EA. Not nearly enough people  make enough money to give the type of sums that EA organizations spend.

The problem with "get governments to scale up and integrate" is that governments... suck. Corruption, incompetence, straight up theft, etc. mean that these interventions which were being provided, when taken over by the government just disappear in a few years.

Many people in the West feel that governments are maybe a bit wasteful and inefficient but on the whole good/okay. In developing countries, this is not always the case.

Happy to answer these

1. Not a specific salary, there should definitely be ranges. I guess I would say the average EA salary should be ~60-80k/year right now. I think this is less than many could make in the private sector but not necessarily all. I acknowledge this is a sacrifice or reduction.
2. I think a reasonable condo/apartment. I think they would cook most of their own meals, could have kids, still save like 10% of income. I don't think it's necessary to live in London, NY, SF.
3. Able to live a ~middle class life. Not sure what peak productivity but miserable means.
4. Virtually all. This is above the median income in the richest country in the world.
5. I think a small ~5% or so may do work outside of EA on the side. I'm also not opposed to higher salaries than this. I don't know what you mean I would expect to happen to them.
6. Usually I expect this to be not a lot of a drop. Maybe an average of 10%. Sometimes i realize this will be more.
7. Well, depends. I think a baseline reasonable counterfactual is Givewell Top Charities Fund.
   
   I suppose 6 and 7 are for an individual hire and not for EA as a whole.