All of richardcanal's Comments + Replies

Hi Gleb_T, Are you arguing that the "inward" message shouldn't be be so slanted toward poverty issues? To me it makes sense that both inwardly and outwardly GWWC should be focused on eliminating extreme poverty, as the "best" example of EA in practice for the reasons stated above by Michelle. Richard

1
Gleb_T
8y
Richard, no, that's not what I'm saying. I guess I was unclear. I wanted the piece to go a bit more in-depth into the kind of context that GWWC is functioning in, and who it is targeting its messages toward. I then gave my own understanding of what GWWC is doing. I think focusing on poverty is quite appropriate for the reasons Michelle was stating, just wanted more in-depth explanation of GWWC's context.

Nevermind, Jonathan has responded below.

Hi Jonathan, I agree that if you're goal is to "do the most good" that majority of EAs (myself included) believe that reducing extreme poverty is the most tractable/efficient way to do that at the current moment.

I think the main issue is that when people are learning about EA, if they find major discrepancies between GWWC currently stated mission (helping reduce poverty) and some materials like the blog post above (mission being do most good) it becomes difficult to figure out what's going on.

One recommendation I have is that if a major rebrandin... (read more)

1
Michelle_Hutchinson
8y
Hi Richard, Thanks for your comments. Sorry to have been unclear - there isn't a major rebranding planned. The changed vision should be thought of more as clarifying what lies at the heart of gwwc and what makes it unique. In large part, the reason for doing it is to further focus the team, rather than to change anything for others. It doesn't mean that we plan to move away from working most on extreme poverty (for the reasons outlined in my more recent blog post). Ending extreme poverty is still a major focus for us (as it is for many EAs), but we wanted a vision that articulated why we work on that, and encapsulated the other things we care about. I am planning to write a blog post about our vision on the GWWC blog in May, I'm glad that seems like a helpful thing to do. Michelle

Great to hear Michelle. I agree that being cause neutral allows us to make more of a difference, and agree 100% with the change in tone, it's going to be extremely confusing for new members that are checking out the website, or reading wikipedia, etc.

Have you talked with Tom Ash Re: givingwhatwecan chapters vs. EA chapters? I think the branding continues to be confusing for a lot of people.

0
richardcanal
8y
Nevermind, Jonathan has responded below.

Also if this is the case, we should probably update the Wikipedia article as well:

"Giving What We Can is an international society for the promotion of the most cost-effective poverty relief, in particular in the developing world."

Oh and the Centre for Effective Altruism website: "Giving What We Can is an international society dedicated to eliminating extreme poverty."

1
davidc
8y
That's not really inconsistent with cause-neutrality, given Michelle's definition (which I admit seems pretty common in EA). (As long as GWWC is open to the possibility of working on something else instead, if something else seemed like a better way to help the world.)

Hi Michelle,

This is so hard to comprehend why this post was made, when it is in strict disagreement with the history/current mission statement for GivingWhatWeCan. Here are are the best descriptions about GivingWhatWeCan's mission that I could find.

"What do you do, and hope to achieve? Our goal is to play our part in eliminating poverty in the developing world."

"OUR HISTORY Giving What We Can is the brainchild of Toby Ord, a philosopher at Balliol College, Oxford. Inspired by the ideas of ethicists Peter Singer and Thomas Pogge, Toby decided... (read more)

1
Michelle_Hutchinson
8y
Hi Richard, I'm sorry it's rather confusing at the moment, and thank you so much for all the work you do with the GWWC/EA Calgary chapter. I'm hoping my more recent post on the Forum might help bring some clarity. I think part of the reason it's particularly confusing at the moment is that our website has been undergoing some changes, so the page with our mission/vision/values is currently not up. We've also, as Jon mentioned, been clarifying what GWWC is fundamentally about, including whether we are necessarily an organisation which focuses primarily on poverty or only contingently so (it's the latter). These are our vision/mission/values: Our Vision A world in which giving 10% of our income to the most effective organisations is the norm Our Mission Inspire donations to the world’s most effective charities Our Values We are a welcoming community, sharing our passion and energy to improve the lives of others. We care. We have a deep commitment to helping others, and We are dedicated to helping other members of our community give more and give better. We take action based on evidence. We apply rigorous academic processes to develop trustworthy research to guide our actions. We are open-minded towards new approaches to altruism that may show greater effectiveness. We are honest when it comes to what we don't know or mistakes we have made. We are optimistic. We are ambitious in terms of the change we believe we can create. We apply energy and enthusiasm to support and build our community. All the best, Michelle
1
jonathancourtney
8y
Hey Richard, Thanks for the comment- I might just field my best reply to these points and let Michelle chime in if I get any of it wrong! I can totally understand your confusion- Giving What We Can does, in a great deal of its research, and its promotional material, focus on the project of eliminating extreme poverty. This is because we believe that projects that focus on the elimination of extreme poverty (the provision of bednets, or drugs for Schistosomiasis, ect) are one of the ways we can do the most good with our time and money. As you can imagine, it is hard to clearly communicate both the point that we are promoting the most effective charities alleviating poverty in the developing world and that we are choosing these charities because we think that giving money to them is plausibly the highest impact action people can take amongst all actions. Due in part to the difficulty of communicating both of these points simultaneously, we have generally focused our promotional material on the former, while always having the later as the core motivation. As Michelle mentioned, this is reflected in the Pledge which is explicitly cause neutral, and this reflects our belief that what defines us as an organisation is not merely a desire for people to give more to the most effective charities in the development space, but to all charities which reason and evidence suggests are likely to improve the world. We are currently undergoing the process of clarifying this point in our vision- roughly (and provisionally!) our new vision is: a world where giving 10% of your income to the most effective causes is the norm. This vision clearly ties into our previous vision of eliminating extreme poverty, as we believe that donations to the most effective charities that tackle extreme poverty represent -from a cause neutral point of view- some of the most effective ways for us to improve the world. After all, if we still have extreme poverty in a world where everyone is giving 10%, th
0
richardcanal
8y
Also if this is the case, we should probably update the Wikipedia article as well: "Giving What We Can is an international society for the promotion of the most cost-effective poverty relief, in particular in the developing world." Oh and the Centre for Effective Altruism website: "Giving What We Can is an international society dedicated to eliminating extreme poverty."

Hi Evan! Shoutout from EA Calgary! We have been discussing with our local chapter to make a road trip to vancouver sometime this summer to meet some fellow EAs, and just read this article and it seems that you were reading my mind! Are there any particular time/events that we should look at coming for? Richard

1
amc
7y
If you can manage it, head to the Seattle Secular Solstice on Dec 10, 2016. Many of us from Vancouver are going.