Ivory Ella doesn’t call themselves EA or a B-corp, but they sure look like one. They were founded in 2015 by pragmatic entrepreneur John Allen who noticed that the best-selling item in the store where he worked had an elephant on it. So he decided to create t-shirts emblazoned with elephants and sold out the first run of 500 in just a few minutes.

They’ve pledged 10% of their profits to elephant conservation (and now other animals and causes too). Which has added up to USD $2M. [Impressive growth and generosity]

At one point they were the largest donor to Save the Elephants, and currently, they are still one of their major contributors. [I worked for Wildlife Conservation Network, so know Save The Elephants fairly well.]

I wrote this to highlight a great org that embodies EA principles but might not be known in the EA community (and perhaps Ivory Ella doesn't know about EA either). But also to start a thread where the community can highlight other similar organizations that are for-profit but donate a substantial portion of the profits to EA causes.

1

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

That's very altruistic of them! (Uncertain about the effectiveness of choosing elephants conservation though)

Here's a short list of cooperate altruism(varying in effectiveness) https://www.buyforward.org/
 

I'm unclear what about this organization embodies EA principles: as Daryl noted, donating to these charities may be altruistic/nice, but I didn't see any indication (or even a direct claim in your post) that the charities are highly impactful, especially in comparison to flagship EA charities like Against Malaria or Give Directly.

As for other organizations that donate portions of their profits/revenue to charities, I think there's a fairly large list, perhaps more than you might think. Most may not donate 10% of their profits, there are products like Ethos Water (which I dislike for seeming to be highly inefficient and overpriced) and the Smile version of Amazon. I'm sure I could think of a variety of others if I had spent more time on this.

I wish you would spend more time on it. I believe the whole community would benefit from your curated list. Or at least please point us in the right direction.

Regarding their effectiveness, they are the preeminent elephant research and conservation organization in the world. They help manage the elephant crisis fund, and they share their experiences and best practices with other conservation orgs (for example they help share the cost of a wildlife vet in central Kenya). They also embody community based conservation. They partner with communities in the elephant range and provide support like scholarships to assign concrete value to conserving elephants. They also innovated the beehive fence to produce honey for extra income and safeguard crops from raiding elephants.

I believe the world is more valuable with diverse megafauna in it. Even if STE is not as effective as mosquito nets or deworming, it still falls in the realm of EA topics mitigating wild animal suffering and environment/climate change. I think it’s a worthwhile investment.

Very cool! A few companies have taken the Giving What We Can pledge.

Curated and popular this week
Ben_West🔸
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
> Summary: We propose measuring AI performance in terms of the length of tasks AI agents can complete. We show that this metric has been consistently exponentially increasing over the past 6 years, with a doubling time of around 7 months. Extrapolating this trend predicts that, in under a decade, we will see AI agents that can independently complete a large fraction of software tasks that currently take humans days or weeks. > > The length of tasks (measured by how long they take human professionals) that generalist frontier model agents can complete autonomously with 50% reliability has been doubling approximately every 7 months for the last 6 years. The shaded region represents 95% CI calculated by hierarchical bootstrap over task families, tasks, and task attempts. > > Full paper | Github repo Blogpost; tweet thread. 
Joris 🔸
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
Last week, I participated in Animal Advocacy Careers’ Impactful Policy Careers programme. Below I’m sharing some reflections on what was a really interesting week in Brussels! Please note I spent just one week there, so take it all with a grain of (CAP-subsidized) salt. Posts like this and this one are probably much more informative (and assume less context). I mainly wrote this to reflect on my time in Brussels (and I capped it at 2 hours, so it’s not a super polished draft). I’ll focus mostly on EU careers generally, less on (EU) animal welfare-related careers. Before I jump in, just a quick note about how I think AAC did something really cool here: they identified a relatively underexplored area where it’s relatively easy for animal advocates to find impactful roles, and then designed a programme to help these people better understand that area, meet stakeholders, and learn how to find roles. I also think the participants developed meaningful bonds, which could prove valuable over time. Thank you to the AAC team for hosting this! On EU careers generally * The EU has a surprisingly big influence over its citizens and the wider world for how neglected it came across to me. There’s many areas where countries have basically given a bunch (if not all) of their decision making power to the EU. And despite that, the EU policy making / politics bubble comes across as relatively neglected, with relatively little media coverage and a relatively small bureaucracy. * There’s quite a lot of pathways into the Brussels bubble, but all have different ToCs, demand different skill sets, and prefer different backgrounds. Dissecting these is hard, and time-intensive * For context, I have always been interested in “a career in policy/politics” – I now realize that’s kind of ridiculously broad. I’m happy to have gained some clarity on the differences between roles in Parliament, work at the Commission, the Council, lobbying, consultancy work, and think tanks. * The absorbe
Max Taylor
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
Many thanks to Constance Li, Rachel Mason, Ronen Bar, Sam Tucker-Davis, and Yip Fai Tse for providing valuable feedback. This post does not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. Artificial General Intelligence (basically, ‘AI that is as good as, or better than, humans at most intellectual tasks’) seems increasingly likely to be developed in the next 5-10 years. As others have written, this has major implications for EA priorities, including animal advocacy, but it’s hard to know how this should shape our strategy. This post sets out a few starting points and I’m really interested in hearing others’ ideas, even if they’re very uncertain and half-baked. Is AGI coming in the next 5-10 years? This is very well covered elsewhere but basically it looks increasingly likely, e.g.: * The Metaculus and Manifold forecasting platforms predict we’ll see AGI in 2030 and 2031, respectively. * The heads of Anthropic and OpenAI think we’ll see it by 2027 and 2035, respectively. * A 2024 survey of AI researchers put a 50% chance of AGI by 2047, but this is 13 years earlier than predicted in the 2023 version of the survey. * These predictions seem feasible given the explosive rate of change we’ve been seeing in computing power available to models, algorithmic efficiencies, and actual model performance (e.g., look at how far Large Language Models and AI image generators have come just in the last three years). * Based on this, organisations (both new ones, like Forethought, and existing ones, like 80,000 Hours) are taking the prospect of near-term AGI increasingly seriously. What could AGI mean for animals? AGI’s implications for animals depend heavily on who controls the AGI models. For example: * AGI might be controlled by a handful of AI companies and/or governments, either in alliance or in competition. * For example, maybe two government-owned companies separately develop AGI then restrict others from developing it. * These actors’ use of AGI might be dr