Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?
1–10 of 220 posts
Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?
#2> Not all of this money was given with the intention of maximising human welfare. Take, for instance, the Make-A-Wish Foundation, which helps children stricken with life-threatening illnesses, by granting “wishes”, such as meeting celebrities or visiting theme parks. The typical wish costs the foundation around $10,000 to fulfil—heartwarming for the recipient but of little help in improving health generally.
This pretty much captures my main complaint about EA. Being mindful about your philanthropy is a good thing, but EA seems to turn into shaming people who value things differently.
[edit] I would add that the Make-A-Wish foundation has a very significant quality of life impact on the kids AND their support network
[edit2] EA = Effective Altrusim (the term was in the original post title, but has been edited out)
Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?
#3> Not all of this money was given with the intention of maximising human welfare. Take, for instance, the Make-A-Wish Foundation, which helps children stricken with life-threatening illnesses, by granting “wishes”, such as meeting celebrities or visiting theme parks. The typical wish costs the foundation around $10,000 to fulfil—heartwarming for the recipient but of little help in improving health generally. This pre…
EA?
EDIT: Make-a-Wish seems more like a giant pr-machine. Granted it's helping some, but wasting a lot of resources that could be better allocated. I guess I am part of the movement, without ever thinking about it
Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?
#4> Not all of this money was given with the intention of maximising human welfare. Take, for instance, the Make-A-Wish Foundation, which helps children stricken with life-threatening illnesses, by granting “wishes”, such as meeting celebrities or visiting theme parks. The typical wish costs the foundation around $10,000 to fulfil—heartwarming for the recipient but of little help in improving health generally. This pre…
EA? EDIT: Make-a-Wish seems more like a giant pr-machine. Granted it's helping some, but wasting a lot of resources that could be better allocated. I guess I am part of the movement, without ever thinking about it
"Effective altruism is a philosophy and social movement that uses evidence and reason to determine the most effective ways to benefit others."
Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?
#5It's not clear why they see this as a nascent movement. My impression of the Gates Foundation is that it uses the funds it donates in a highly analytical fashion to maximize the 'net positive gain' in the welfare of humanity. First example that comes to mind is their commitment to eradicating polio.
This analytical approch been their M.O. for 20 years.
Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?
#6> Not all of this money was given with the intention of maximising human welfare. Take, for instance, the Make-A-Wish Foundation, which helps children stricken with life-threatening illnesses, by granting “wishes”, such as meeting celebrities or visiting theme parks. The typical wish costs the foundation around $10,000 to fulfil—heartwarming for the recipient but of little help in improving health generally. This pre…
> who value things differently
Can you try to formulate those values?
> I would add that the Make-A-Wish foundation has a very significant quality of life impact on the kids AND their support network
But given the costs per instance that impact is only on a small fraction of all cases. A smaller impact for everyone or one that only materializes in the future would likely generate more utility if you add them up.
Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?
#7> Not all of this money was given with the intention of maximising human welfare. Take, for instance, the Make-A-Wish Foundation, which helps children stricken with life-threatening illnesses, by granting “wishes”, such as meeting celebrities or visiting theme parks. The typical wish costs the foundation around $10,000 to fulfil—heartwarming for the recipient but of little help in improving health generally. This pre…
Are you suggesting donors to make-a-wish actually value making one dying kid (and his support network) happy more than saving the lives of several?
I doubt that's usually the case because if you consider it for a moment is seems so unfair and cruel. No, it's probably something else that motivates their decision...
Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?
#8It's not clear why they see this as a nascent movement. My impression of the Gates Foundation is that it uses the funds it donates in a highly analytical fashion to maximize the 'net positive gain' in the welfare of humanity. First example that comes to mind is their commitment to eradicating polio. This analytical approch been their M.O. for 20 years.
EA has been around for a while and the Gates foundation is the exception not the rule.
Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?
#9> Not all of this money was given with the intention of maximising human welfare. Take, for instance, the Make-A-Wish Foundation, which helps children stricken with life-threatening illnesses, by granting “wishes”, such as meeting celebrities or visiting theme parks. The typical wish costs the foundation around $10,000 to fulfil—heartwarming for the recipient but of little help in improving health generally. This pre…
Are you suggesting donors to make-a-wish actually value making one dying kid (and his support network) happy more than saving the lives of several? I doubt that's usually the case because if you consider it for a moment is seems so unfair and cruel. No, it's probably something else that motivates their decision...
They probably do value spending $10,000 on making one dying kid happy higher than $10,000 worth of medical research.
If you claim $10,000 worth of medical research will save the lives of several people then clearly we're doing something wrong with the other billions we spend on medical research.
Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?
#10It's not clear why they see this as a nascent movement. My impression of the Gates Foundation is that it uses the funds it donates in a highly analytical fashion to maximize the 'net positive gain' in the welfare of humanity. First example that comes to mind is their commitment to eradicating polio. This analytical approch been their M.O. for 20 years.
Where was the science before they screwed up bigly with the mosquito nets?