Orgs like SCCSSAR are in my mind exactly the kinds of orgs that are probably overfunded, and I realize the irony of saying that about a $30k/year organization. Wrote up a super short thread at https://twitter.com/aslvrstn/status/1597341909827325952 but basically .. that actually seems like a kind of steep price for 25 searches per year, and the claim that they're saving lives every year seems a bit credulous. I'm not mad that they exist, nor that they're tax exempt even, at least given what else gets to be, but saying that they're a good example of an underfunded org seems like a stretch.
I just came across this post, thanks for writing it up! I have some opinions that counter your three objections that I would love to share. Here it goes:
Objection 1: Effective altruists are so dead set on outcomes that they focus on ardent followers rather than encouraging masses
Reply 1: I think they do both, as would appear is the rational route for them. In terms of encouraging the masses, a lot of examples come to mind. The notion that everybody can make a big difference to the world by giving a fixed portion of their salary no matter how much you make is promoted across 80,000 hours, Giving What We Can, and Effective Altruism.org. The messaging is set up to get as many on board as possible. Another example is Peter Singer's outreach, who is careful to make an appeal to everyone in his writing and to also tailor giving suggestions to income.
Objection 3: It's hard to objectively prioritize causes globally and measure them
Reply 3: I would argue the opposite: it is very hard to measure impact of local giving in terms of net effect, and much easier to do with the right global charities. Specifically, the top charities that effective altruists fancy often have randomized control trials or at least observational studies that report effect sizes of the interventions. Here's an example: https://www.givedirectly.org/research-at-give-directly/. In contrast, local causes usually (but not always) lack systematic analysis or experimental interventions that test and map impact.
Orgs like SCCSSAR are in my mind exactly the kinds of orgs that are probably overfunded, and I realize the irony of saying that about a $30k/year organization. Wrote up a super short thread at https://twitter.com/aslvrstn/status/1597341909827325952 but basically .. that actually seems like a kind of steep price for 25 searches per year, and the claim that they're saving lives every year seems a bit credulous. I'm not mad that they exist, nor that they're tax exempt even, at least given what else gets to be, but saying that they're a good example of an underfunded org seems like a stretch.
This reminds me of Wendell Berry’s essay “Think Little” (https://berrycenter.org/2017/03/26/think-little-wendell-berry/).
I just came across this post, thanks for writing it up! I have some opinions that counter your three objections that I would love to share. Here it goes:
Objection 1: Effective altruists are so dead set on outcomes that they focus on ardent followers rather than encouraging masses
Reply 1: I think they do both, as would appear is the rational route for them. In terms of encouraging the masses, a lot of examples come to mind. The notion that everybody can make a big difference to the world by giving a fixed portion of their salary no matter how much you make is promoted across 80,000 hours, Giving What We Can, and Effective Altruism.org. The messaging is set up to get as many on board as possible. Another example is Peter Singer's outreach, who is careful to make an appeal to everyone in his writing and to also tailor giving suggestions to income.
Objection 2: Giving returns aren't linear
Reply 2: Usually the returns are roughly linear. Take the famous malaria bed nets and malaria medicine. Every extra net and pill has a proportional chance of averting a death, a probability which you can roughly approximate by combining many relevant variables (here's some spreadsheets where they do that: https://www.givewell.org/how-we-work/our-criteria/cost-effectiveness/cost-effectiveness-models). Nonlinearities could occur yes, for example if a charity becomes overfunded. But this is carefully tracked by the organizations (https://www.givewell.org/how-we-work/criteria/room-for-more-funding).
Objection 3: It's hard to objectively prioritize causes globally and measure them
Reply 3: I would argue the opposite: it is very hard to measure impact of local giving in terms of net effect, and much easier to do with the right global charities. Specifically, the top charities that effective altruists fancy often have randomized control trials or at least observational studies that report effect sizes of the interventions. Here's an example: https://www.givedirectly.org/research-at-give-directly/. In contrast, local causes usually (but not always) lack systematic analysis or experimental interventions that test and map impact.
Regarding the central planning problem, the solution is obviously <blah> <bleh> <something something> AI.