I find this format very useful. The Challenges and Co-founder fit sections help us to understand our personal fit for each one of the charity ideas. The three level summaries let the reader decide how much time she/he wants to spend.

A heads-up: in your Sign up: Charity Entrepreneurship Online Talk (Top ideas 2023) form you list the salt fluoridation program but it is not described in this post. I wonder if this is an error on the form or whether you missed to copy its details into this post.

Other explanation of the investors’ expectations for 2033 is that they have seen the words “peak oil demand” written more and more frequently in the latest reports by IEA and other energy forecasters.

Oil demand can decrease by a combination of economic slowdown and oil intensity improvement. Oil intensity defined as the volume of oil needed to produce a fixed economic output. If we replace oil by other energy sources or increase the efficiency of our energy use we will improve the oil intensity. If we improve the oil intensity fast enough then we won’t see a significant economic impact. I guess the main point of Corentin’s argumet is about the speed of this transition.

Years ago, I read a paper explaining why oil price can’t go above a certain threshold. Oversimplifying it, the economic system can’t work above a certain cost of energy, so when this level is surpassed, some business will stop being profitable, the demand for oil will decrease and prices will go down. I might be missing some nuances and probably I’m not explaining it completely accurate, but this is how I understood it.

I would love to find the paper again to go through it, but unfortunately, I can’t recall the title nor the authors. I wonder if someone here have some references about the topic of how expensive an oil barrel can become before demand starts to shrink.

For point 1, if future human beings are better off (they live longer and happier lives), then (all else being equal) we should value more one of these better future lives than one life from today's world. Therefore we shouldn't discount its value for this reason.

When we believe that policy advocacy interventions are highly cost-effective, are we considering the end-to-end costs or only the first link in the chain?

As an example, for road-safety, are we counting A or B?:

1. Salary costs of a group of people spending their time to convince the authorities to pass a law limiting speed
2. Costs in “A” + costs of writing and publishing the law + costs of communicating about the new law in the media + costs of changing the speed limit signals, etc.

If this is the case, then advocacy will allways be the most cost-effective option. As long as you have a small probability to convince the government, it will allways be cheaper to convince someone else to fix an issue with their money than spending your money to fix the issue.

Congratulations! Great job by CE and all these founders.

I’m impressed by the “sodium taxation policy advocacy to control hypertension to be 190,927 DALYs per USD 100,000, which is around 300x as cost-effective as giving to a GiveWell top charity” cited in the Centre for exploratory altruism research site.

Hi Pablo,

I was expecting to join tomorrow. No need for you to start the meeting today.

Other possible question for this FAQ:

How much of EA's money came from FTX Future Fund?
As per the post Historical EA funding data from August 2022, the estimation for 2022 was:
* Total EA funds: 741 M$
* FTX Future Fund contribution: 262 M$ (35%)

If anyone has more up to date analysis, or better data, please report it.

And many thanks for the very clear and useful summary. Well done.

Lorenzo, I agree the expert traders and investor have more technical skills about investment. But it seems to me that MacAskill and FTX Future Fund board had more direct information about the personality of SBF and the personal connections among the leaders and the group dynamics. So, when it comes to your statement “having access to way less information”, I don’t think this is the case.