This seems the opposite of what the data says up to 2024 Comparing 2024 to 2022, GH decreased by 9%, LTXR decreased by 13%, AW decreased by 23%, Meta decreased by 21% and "Other" increased by 23% I think the data for 2025 is too noisy and mostly sensitive to reporting timing (whether an org publishes their grant reports early in the year or later in the year) to inform an opinion

Thanks for the comment, Jim! 0.0374 % is my best guess, but I agree there is lots of uncertainty. For an exponent of the number of neurons of 0.188, which explains pretty well the welfare ranges in Bob's book about comparing animal welfare across species, the effects on soil animals would dominate even more easily. However, I would also not be surprised if 100 times as much consumption of the affected farmed shrimp, 3.74 % (= 100*3.74*10^-4), would have to be replaced by farmed fish for effects on soil animals to dominate, in which case I could easily electrically stunning shrimp increasing animal welfare. My main takeaway from the section where I discuss eletrically stunning shrimp is that I do not really know whether it increases or decreases welfare. I would still believe this even if my preferred way of comparing welfare across species was certain to be right. There is plenty of uncertainty in whether electrically stunning farmed shrimps increases or decreases the welfare of soil animals, and in the replacement of the consumption of farmed shrimps by other foods. I agree decreasing the uncertainty about comparing welfare across different potential beings should also be a priority. I just feel it is very hard to make progress on this in comparison to gaining a better understanding of the conditions of soil animals in different biomes.

These materials may be helpful for donors who are setting their philanthropy strategy.  1. This online philanthropy strategy tool asks you a few questions to help you select worldviews to include in your giving. 2. Template philanthropy strategy document, which you can populate -- ideally after using the tool. It would be great to see people using these tools and providing feedback on them. You can provide feedback by messaging me (Sanjay) on this forum (or any other way, if you already have my contact details). A huge thanks to Spencer E (who left SoGive to work at GWWC) and the other SoGive staff members who've been instrumental in laying the groundwork for this. It may be a useful exercise for donors who are sympathetic to worldview diversification.  * This post summarises the questions asked by the survey, and the analysis done * It will also summarise some reasons why this tool may not be helpful for some people in this forum.  The questions asked by the survey, and the analysis done Questions asked The survey focuses on the two areas that we at SoGive consider to be the most material. (1) cause/worldview selection (2) timing of donations (aka give now/give later); and the associated investment considerations For each of the questions, the survey includes a summary of the considerations that we consider to be most relevant, to help the user make better decisions. (1) Worldview selection  The survey asks the user two trade-off questions  1a) How many chicken lives improved are equivalent to one life saved 1b) how many future lives enabled are equivalent to one child's life saved today (2) Timing of donations 2a) The survey asks users to choose between (a) a more patient approach such as a capital preserving endowment or a patient philanthropy approach which aims to grow the capital and (b) spending down the funds within a finite time period. 2b) If somebody asks users whether they want to take a strategic approach to investment (ie selecti

That does seem right, thanks. I intended to include dictator-ish human takeover there (which seems to me to be at least as likely as misaligned AI takeover) as well, but didn't say that clearly. Edited to "relatively amoral forces" which still isn't great but maybe a little clearer.