It sounds like you might have a comparative advantage in health tech though that would enable you to do a lot of good working for a health tech organization that produces technology that benefits the global poor
Yeah, that's another option I can build career capital for. Most of the health tech jobs in the market is towards US healthcare problems, which is what my experience is in. A goal, one day, would be to work for or start a global health non-profit leveraging technology to scale a validated health intervention (e.g tech-enabled AMF).
But to build that career capital, I don't think I need to work in healthcare my entire career. It'd probably be better to build that capital across a breadth of industries. That's an assumption though and need to network with others to confirm that.
Those are really good points! The hardest thing about this is trying to simplify it without losing them in the details/statistics/numbers - but also not oversimplifying it that people don't believe you or are skeptical.
What's interesting is if the $2300 to save a life would resonate with the average person. I know when I first read about this, I didn't think much of it. But then when I saw it in comparison to the $50k guide dog for blind person in the US, that really drove home the point for me.
Raising for Effective Giving targets the poker industry. The co-founders are poker players themselves and found that players embody the 'E' in EA. They propose that this audience tends to be more rational and logic than the general population. Their initial outreach strategy was to target players who have a pre-existing altruistic tendency, and get them to donate to more effective charities.
Not sure if that constitutes as data for your purposes, but they are an example of how they've targeted an audience that has seen some success in converting to EA.
But you could try to first suggest what the best donation opportunities that are COVID/pandemic-related are, and then point out in a very non-pushy way how other things may be especially neglected right now, and thus especially valuable to donate to. Sort of like an intellectual point that they can take or leave, with you having first accepted and respected their starting point of interest in COVID specifically.
That's sounds like a good approach. I'm the only EA I know of so just spreading the ideas / principles that resonates with my peers is difficult.
As someone still fairly new to EA myself, I'm considered longtermism but haven't done enough time investment to change my donation strategy as I prioritize direct interventions for global health.
Let me know how the fundraiser goes! I am going to wait until I hear something from GiveWell, but will definitely look into CHS.
GiveDirectly has provided more information about their response. It looks like they'll expand beyond the US. If it does, how would that change your categorization? It'd probably depend on the country (e.g. sub-saharan Africa vs. Italy vs. China).
We also plan to respond internationally, and are finalizing those details. Will share shortly.
Thank you for the clarification.
If funding for different GiveDirectly projects are sufficiently separate, your donation would pretty much just increase the budgets of the programmes you wish to support, perhaps especially if you give via GiveWell.
Confused about this one as I have not donated directly to GiveDirectly - I thought that if I were to donate $100 for standard cash transfer, some % of that goes directly to recipients. They state 89% for specific African countries. I would hope there would be some comparable % for standard cash transfers to US recipients.
If I were considering giving to GiveDirectly, I would want to look into this a bit more.
What questions come to mind for you? Some that I think of...
Thanks!! This will be very helpful.
My goal isn't to become a huge blogger or streamer. The purpose of them is for leisure and any money that I make, I donate to charity. I feel like this would increase the quality of my leisure time and give me more fulfillment and satisfaction - the warm fuzzies in that article. Meanwhile, my day job is optimized for utilons.
Thanks for sharing the article. It sounds like I was trying to optimize for both, while the best approach is to do separate.
Maybe "effective" is the wrong word to describe my feelings about this.
To piggy off of aarongertler's comment - it seems like I have more than one goal of what I want out of my time. Through my day job, I want to save lives, have impact on the distant feature, build new skills and widen my professional network. I'm very fortunate that I get all those things and have a good time as well.
Whereas blogging and Twitch streaming, I want to have a good time doing it, but also make an impact so that I feel much more satisfied/fulfilled/motivated in doing it. Otherwise, my fear is that it would become a waste of time.
I think you hit the nail on the head about being okay to have more than one goal. It'd definitely be more effective to just increase donations through my day job.
An added layer on this is that I've enjoyed gaming since I was young, but have had conflicting feelings about it now that I'm older: Does this give me fulfillment and satisfaction anymore? It's fun in the moment, yet it's fleeting.
Hence why I'm exploring Twitch and donating any profit from it. In hopes that I can make an impact through gaming, and feel fulfilled from it. Perhaps I just need to start and see how I feel as I go...