Thanks for the encouragement. I think that aiming for a "perfect" write-up has been a barrier to publishing content, so I intend for us to publish more shallow reviews to address this.
To answer your question, I think the best focus areas would be the six bullet points highlighted near the start of the article, with a particular focus on the first two (are the stoves actually used, and are they actually clean?) and the last (what is the best way to fund this work?).
Also, we would further investigate the very useful comments made by MatthewDahlhausen (which seemed very useful and was upvoted by me) and look further at the GiveWell analysis as mentioned by cole_haus (I was aware of this, but had not had the capacity to review it properly)
Thank you to JanBrauner for raising this. I have had similar concerns.
However I don't think stronger moderation is the answer, especially since it's hard to moderate the comments, which is where most of the poor quality content arises.
Instead, it perhaps needs more concerted efforts from those who have thought about EA ideas more carefully to (nicely and constructively) help to improve the quality of the discussion.
This means participating in the EA facebook group more actively, rather than spending less time on it and just paying attention to the forum (which candidly, is what I've found myself doing)
Note: this question was also cross-posted to the Facebook effective environmentalism group https://www.facebook.com/groups/effectiveenvironmentalism/permalink/2306369839662729/
HaukeHillebrandt has recommended supporting Prof Chris Chambers to do this: https://lets-fund.org/better-science/
I too imagined that downloading it and viewing it MS Excel might be better, but as far as I can tell there doesn't seem to be a way of downloading it. Unless I've just not found the way to download?
Thank you for sharing this. Unfortunately the model shared appears to be a values-only version of the model (i.e. when I go to any cell in the spreadsheet, the formula bar just shows a number, not a formula). This makes it very hard to work out how you came to your conclusions.
I don't know whether it's showing this way because of the way One Drive operates or because you deliberately removed the formulae before uploading the spreadsheet, however I would certainly find it useful if you could find a way to share the full model. Thank you.
Under certain assumptions, it is possible for eating animal products to be morally better than eating vegan food. In particular, you would have to believe that positive impacts on the animal's life outweigh the negative aspects, also outperform the net effect of wildlife that would have been on that land no longer being there, and the sustainability impact. I've explored this in this blog post, and I suggest in that post that it is possible for eating meat to be the better option, but it probably isn't: https://interestingthingsiveread.blogspot.com/2018/12/veganism-may-be-net-negative-but-we.html
As KHorton has alluded to, there is a well-established body of literature which indicates that development leads lower Total Fertility Rates. Examples include the books Common Wealth by Jeffrey Sachs and Factfulness by Hans Rosling et al. The following online resources also explore this:
Great that you're doing this, thanks so much for raising this here!
Not sure if you're already aware of this, but you might want to be aware of other studies that have looked at similar questions. In particular the Money For Good study in the US and the equivalent in the UK were interesting, albeit somewhat dated. (I have the raw data for the UK study). You might want to have a look so that you can use consistent question wording whether the questions overlap.
Some questions that we at SoGive would be interested to know more about:
Some researchers are doing some interesting work on how people give -- the names Beth Breeze and Cat Walker spring to mind, although there are others as well. But you may well be too time-constrained to wade through all their work, in which case I suggest you just take a look at the Money for Good studies mentioned earlier.
More generally, very happy to discuss further. If you are willing to have a chat, let me know: sanjay [at] sogive.org
And is it fair to say that if it applies to the GD impact, then applying it differentially across countries no longer makes sense? (i.e. Hauke's original approach does make sense after all?)