3 ms·

To summarize the argument: EA says that we should give money to the most effective causes, which implies that certain less effective but still very good causes

To summarize the argument: EA says that we should give money to the most effective causes, which implies that certain less effective but still very good causes should not be supported, so EA is harmful.

gnramires 4y ago
I consider myself part of the EA movement, and I don't donate exclusively to e.g. Givewell charities -- although I wouldn't say I don't try to make my donations most effective as a whole. The cost of saving a life for Givewell is about $3000 dollars. I think local development that is expected to truly generate productivity, like even education in higher income regions, can have an economic outcome that generates far more than what was invested (by having them produce far more than $3000, while also being charitable). Not only does the wellbeing of people around me matter (as much as everyone else), we should work to maintain the local health and productivity so it can continue its contribution to the world. I think this mindset is similar to the EA "earning to give" argument. Also, EA usually recognizes humans are not perfectly rational. If you're going to be miserable by donating most/all of your income, it may be best to cut back a little so you can be happier and more productive (or at least seek psychological support to be more comfortably altruistic).
- zozbot234 4y ago
  The usual argument though is that giving money to "save lives" by improving health in poor regions, also helps bootstrap development in those regions by boosting their income generating capacity. So even improving productivity is something that might be a lot easier in poor countries.
  - gnramires 4y ago
    Yes, that's certainly true (for the record, most of my donations are to Givewell -- I particularly admire GiveDirectly as well -- and I think most charity should go directly to where it's most needed). But there are exceptions -- for example, investing in (relatively already wealthy) health research industries (e.g. addressing pandemics) can save lives in the long run (indirectly), and I think some educational efforts and reserving a small part of your donations to local issues is effective. Diversification is a good idea in this case because I don't have time to measure some of those impacts precisely; otherwise I'd give everything to the most effective cause.

gnramires 4y ago

I consider myself part of the EA movement, and I don't donate exclusively to e.g. Givewell charities -- although I wouldn't say I don't try to make my donations most effective as a whole. The cost of saving a life for Givewell is about $3000 dollars. I think local development that is expected to truly generate productivity, like even education in higher income regions, can have an economic outcome that generates far more than what was invested (by having them produce far more than $3000, while also being charitable). Not only does the wellbeing of people around me matter (as much as everyone else), we should work to maintain the local health and productivity so it can continue its contribution to the world. I think this mindset is similar to the EA "earning to give" argument. Also, EA usually recognizes humans are not perfectly rational. If you're going to be miserable by donating most/all of your income, it may be best to cut back a little so you can be happier and more productive (or at least seek psychological support to be more comfortably altruistic).

zozbot234 4y ago
The usual argument though is that giving money to "save lives" by improving health in poor regions, also helps bootstrap development in those regions by boosting their income generating capacity. So even improving productivity is something that might be a lot easier in poor countries.
- gnramires 4y ago
  Yes, that's certainly true (for the record, most of my donations are to Givewell -- I particularly admire GiveDirectly as well -- and I think most charity should go directly to where it's most needed). But there are exceptions -- for example, investing in (relatively already wealthy) health research industries (e.g. addressing pandemics) can save lives in the long run (indirectly), and I think some educational efforts and reserving a small part of your donations to local issues is effective. Diversification is a good idea in this case because I don't have time to measure some of those impacts precisely; otherwise I'd give everything to the most effective cause.