CarlShulman comments on Efficient Charity: Cheap Utilons via bone marrow registration - Less Wrong

17 Post author: atorm 29 January 2012 03:52AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (46)
Tags: charity utilons

Comments (46)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: CarlShulman 29 January 2012 07:06:36AM *  24 points [-]

But if no-one did things like this, the registry would be empty of donors, and a world where everyone pumped their free time into money for malaria and neglected all other worthy causes seems distasteful to me.

That's unfortunately like the argument that one shouldn't become anything but a farmer, since without farmers we would have no food. One needs to think at the margin. First-world healthcare spending is many, many, times effective international public health expenditures. The major malaria, HIV, etc interventions would be overflowing before this got to be a big dent. If "everyone thought one way" and implemented the rule "first do the things that do the most good by your lights, until diminishing returns drive the good per dollar below the next alternative" you would get a more efficient charitable market, where one could do similar amounts of good in diverse fields, just as stock and bond markets are somewhat efficient.

ETA: Note that AMF is a placeholder here, I don't actually think that's the best way to help the current generation, let alone future generations.

Comment author: jacobt 29 January 2012 08:43:27AM 2 points [-]

Great point.

ETA: Note that AMF is a placeholder here, I don't actually think that's the best way to help the current generation, let alone future generations.

I can see how things like SIAI or FHI might be better for future generations, but what do you think is better than AMF for current generations?

Comment author: CarlShulman 29 January 2012 10:28:28AM *  12 points [-]

A few things I would see as better in expectation than AMF in terms of current people (with varying degrees of confidence and EV, note that I am not ranking the following in relation to each other in this comment):

  • GiveWell itself (it directs multiple dollars to its top charities on the dollar invested, as far as I can see, and powers the growth of an effective philanthropy movement with broader implications).
  • Some research in the model of Poverty Action Lab.
  • A portfolio of somewhat outre endeavours like Paul Romer's Charter Cities.
  • Political lobbying for AMF-style interventions (Gates cites his lobbying expenditures as among their very best), carefully optimized as expected-value charity rather than tribalism using GiveWell-style empiricism, with the collective action problems of politics offsetting the reduced efficiency and corruption of the government route
  • In my view, the risk of catastrophe from intelligent machines is large enough and neglected enough to beat AMF (Averting a 0.1% risk of killing everyone would be worth $14 billion at the $2,000/life AMF exchange rate; plus, conditional on intelligent machines being feasible this century the expected standard of living for current people goes up, meriting extra attention depending on how much better life can get than the current standard); this is much less of a slam dunk than if we consider future generations, but still better than AMF when I use my best estimates
  • Nukes and biotech also pose catastrophic risks, but also have much larger spending on countermeasures today (tens of billions annually), although smarter countermeasures could help, so probably not anything I can point to now, although I expect such options exist
  • Putting money in a Donor-Advised Fund to await the discovery of more effective charities, or special time-sensitive circumstances demanding funds especially strongly
Comment author: multifoliaterose 13 February 2012 12:45:52AM *  0 points [-]

GiveWell itself (it directs multiple dollars to its top charities on the dollar invested, as far as I can see, and powers the growth of an effective philanthropy movement with broader implications).

There's an issue of room for more funding.

Some research in the model of Poverty Action Lab.

What information do we have from Poverty Action Lab that we wouldn't have otherwise? (This is not intended as a rhetorical question; I don't know much about what Poverty Action Lab has done).

A portfolio of somewhat outre endeavours like Paul Romer's Charter Cities.

Even in the face of the possibility of such endeavors systematically doing more harm than good due to culture clash?

Political lobbying for AMF-style interventions (Gates cites his lobbying expenditures as among their very best), carefully optimized as expected-value charity rather than tribalism using GiveWell-style empiricism, with the collective action problems of politics offsetting the reduced efficiency and corruption of the government route

Here too maybe there's an issue of room for more funding: if there's room for more funding then why does the Gates Foundation spend money on many other things?

Putting money in a Donor-Advised Fund to await the discovery of more effective charities, or special time-sensitive circumstances demanding funds especially strongly

What would the criterion for using the money be? (If one doesn't have such a criterion then one forever holds off on a better opportunity and this has zero expected value.)

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit