3 ms·

> But when I read this report I am willing to donate more money to this organization. At the risk of being overly cynical, and putting words into mark_integerd

by dbaupp 13y ago

> But when I read this report I am willing to donate more money to this organization. At the risk of being overly cynical, and putting words into mark_integerdsv's mouth, I believe that's almost exactly what he's arguing against. Make-a-wish spends $7.5k on each wish on average[1]. Whereas something like Schistosomiasis Control Initiative per-child cost is $5[2]. That is, the money spent "granting wishes" could perform much more good elsewhere, and so by donating to Make-a-Wish one is buying "fuzzies"[3], not being optimally philanthropic. [1]: http://wish.org/content/faq#How-much-does-granting-a-wish-cost http://wish.org/content/faq#How-much-does-granting-a-wish-co... [2]: http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/schistosomiasis-control-initiative http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/schistos... , the $5 figure comes from http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities [3]: Word adopted from http://lesswrong.com/lw/6z/purchase_fuzzies_and_utilons_separately/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/6z/purchase_fuzzies_and_utilons_sepa... , meaning "warm fuzzy feelings of 'doing good'"

yetanotherphd 13y ago
GiveWell estimate the cost per life saved for the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative to be around $1700-$3800, while the $7,500 that Make-a-wish spends per child, while a wonderful gesture, does not actually save their life.
corysama 13y ago
True, it's not optimal. But, it's important to keep in mind that this is not a zero-sum game. The $7500 is not being diverted or even distracted from more efficient uses. It's money that in all likelihood would have never been donated to other uses. We need a lot more of both ends of this spectrum. More warm fuzzies to get people's attention -at all. And, more awareness of the wildly different efficiencies of different philanthropic strategies. Achieving both attention and efficiency is really hard. If you figure out how to do that, let me know. In the mean time, we should be happy for whatever wins we can get.
tn13 13y ago
I do not think the said organization is working in the area of "Schistosomiasis Control Initiative". They are working in a different area and it is good thing that they have money to spend. May be it is much easier to ask for money for leukemia than for "Schistosomiasis Control Initiative". I dont think the said organization is optimizing for overall child health care. They are optimizing it for a particular area.

by dbaupp 13y ago

yetanotherphd 13y ago

GiveWell estimate the cost per life saved for the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative to be around $1700-$3800, while the $7,500 that Make-a-wish spends per child, while a wonderful gesture, does not actually save their life.

corysama 13y ago

True, it's not optimal. But, it's important to keep in mind that this is not a zero-sum game. The $7500 is not being diverted or even distracted from more efficient uses. It's money that in all likelihood would have never been donated to other uses. We need a lot more of both ends of this spectrum. More warm fuzzies to get people's attention -at all. And, more awareness of the wildly different efficiencies of different philanthropic strategies. Achieving both attention and efficiency is really hard. If you figure out how to do that, let me know. In the mean time, we should be happy for whatever wins we can get.

tn13 13y ago

I do not think the said organization is working in the area of "Schistosomiasis Control Initiative". They are working in a different area and it is good thing that they have money to spend. May be it is much easier to ask for money for leukemia than for "Schistosomiasis Control Initiative". I dont think the said organization is optimizing for overall child health care. They are optimizing it for a particular area.