For those interested in Effective Altruism, Will MacAskill's book Doing Good Better is a great read that raises a lot of thought-provoking questions.
Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?
11–20 of 220 posts
Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
$10k worth of malaria nets will save a couple of lives.
Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?
#13I for one, will never trust the rich (Especially when it is clear when they pay people to promote their deeds and paint them an angel).
I think what ever they do, they do it to gather more wealth (Even if it is not apparent for the common man).
For an example, see how gates foundation tried to operate in India [1].
Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?
#14> 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.
> Can you try to formulate those values?
Perhaps your question is phrased poorly, but it appears you're asking OP to rationalize every value a donor has when they donate to an organization like Make-A-Wish. Is that what you meant? If so, where would one even start to answer this question?
Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?
#15> 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...
Yeah, how dare donors use their money in ways they see fit! Let's make an organization that shames other organizations for spending in ways we find unsavory or inefficient.
Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?
#16Sign me up for some scientific rigor in all policy work, journalism.
State hypothesis, compare predictions to reality, show your work, cite your sources, peer review.
The "replication crisis" touches everything. What I like to call "governance technology".
We live in exciting times. I'm irrationally optimistic. Eager to see what happens next.
Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?
#17> 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...
You appear to be using innuendo, but I don't know what you're implying. Here is my answer reading you literally:
Yes. Your argument, while presented against make-a-wish, actually applies to all artistic endeavors. Yes, it is good and right to make life worth living.
Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?
#18> 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...
>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?
Yes.
>I doubt that's usually the case because if you consider it for a moment is seems so unfair and cruel.
Hmm? What about all the discretionary money you spend on dates, living in a nicer than necessary apartment, money spent on hobbies, etc? Do you value those things more than the lives of African children who will die if you don't donate your discretionary spending? Well of course you do because you do one and not the other.
>No, it's probably something else that motivates their decision...
And what would that be?
Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?
#19It'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.
Effective altruism is well-known among a small number of nerds and not at all known or used in many other sectors. I do grant writing for nonprofit and public agencies, and I just wrote about how little government is (really) interested in it: http://seliger.com/2018/06/01/youre-not-organization-isnt-wo...
Those of you interested should read the philanthropy chapter in Robin Hanson and Kevin Simler's book The Elephant and the Brain.
Re: Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 $10,000 worth of medical research will save the lives of several people then clearly we're doing something wrong with the other billions we spend on medical research.
Medical Research saves a lot of lives over time.
A drug that saves 1,000 lives per year worldwide at the cost of 1 billion dollars seems expensive. But that's 1 million lives over the next 100 years for 10,000$ each and we would still know how to make that drug in 100 years. Dropping that to 1,000$ per life over ~1000 years.
And if you consider 1 billion per 1 thousand lives/year then cancers's 8.2 million deaths/year is clearly worth ~8.2+ Trillion dollars in research to cure or ~4.1 Trillion to cut in half.
PS: Global cancer research only recently hit 100 Billion per year so it's going to take a long time to hit 4.1 trillion yet we already save a large chunk of potential cancer victims.