EA Forum Bot Site
EA Forum

Take the 2025 EA Forum Survey to help inform our strategy and prioritiesTake the survey
Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Kestrel🔸3
1
0

I'll try to phrase this question as: let's say the standard EA cost-effectiveness threshold for saving a life is $5000 (that's roughly what it is). Are there any charities (presumably EA ones) where if I donate $5,000 (enough to save a life on average), I can be

  • nearly certain (let's say 95% sure) that my cash has been spent in ways that caused at least one life to be saved
  • that would not have been saved if I had not given them $5,000?

Great question, and I'm not sure there actually is one at present, because charities that are significantly more cost-effective than this threshold or that can demonstrate conclusive lifesaving at about this threshold tend to acquire donation reserves so additional money to them doesn't result in them being able to spend it - that's basically why the threshold exists, it's sort of determined by the amount of money EA-inclined donors have available to direct.

Although actually now I think of it there might be something to do with HIV treatment now that PEPFAR money has been pulled. If someone with HIV doesn't get HIV treatment they will die (unless they are very rarely the person who is naturally immune). And there's a huge funding gap in that space. So if I were so inclined to care about concreteness in the way you do, that's where I'd go hunting.

Reply
See in context
by questionhaver8733
1 min read1 answer 2

-1

Animal welfareEffective givingGlobal health & developmentDonation choiceThreads
Frontpage
Show all topics

How can I donate in a way that I know my donation will be the difference between an extra human or animal being saved/spared and not being saved/spared.

For example if I vote in an election or stay home it'll make no difference. Of course I think people should still vote but if me donating a relatively small amount (less then 5 thousand let's say) to a specific charity or not donating will not make any difference then I'm not terribly motivated to donate.

I know against malaria foundation sends you an email about six months after your donation telling you where your donation funded nets for.

Is there any other charities like this? Or do I have to get creative and do things like buy ads and billboards to advertise the dominion documentary and whatnot?

I know individual consumer boycott does make a difference in sparing chickens lives Like in the first five minutes of this video  https://youtu.be/brKhhZlUoOc?feature=shared he discuses a study that shows the average consumer has a 90 something percent chance of causing 1 - 900 extra chickens to be bred into existence tortured and killed.

https://philarchive.org/rec/MCMAIO

But I'm not sure if an individual donating a relatively small (less than 5k) to charity or not donating to charity has the same effect for saving or sparing animals or humans.

I want to know the most certain donation both for helping humans and the most certain donation for helping animals (mammals and or birds).

By certain I mean most likely that it will make an impact unlike me voting in a presidential election or staying home. Whatever donation is least likely to be like voting.

-1

0
0

Reactions

0
0
New Answer
New Comment

1 Answers sorted by
Top

Kestrel🔸

4
1
0

This got me thinking. You might do well with https://taimaka.org/ - the lives saved are statistical (although at a far larger life saved / people treated ratio than, say malaria interventions), but giving $100 really does treat a malnourished child who will presumably have a much better experience than if not treated. That's an impact in itself.

questionhaver87331
0
0

I already donated them a few thousand dollars. But how do I know if me donating a few thousand dollars makes a difference or not? I'm sure if I gave them a few hundred thousand dollars all at once I could be sure I saved some extra lives but I am not so sure for a few thousand or if it's like voting in an election.

Reply
4
Rowan Clements 🔸
It sounds like you want to be the one who creates a tipping point. E.g. in your election analogy, if 51/100 people voted for your preferred candidate, you'd want to be the 51st person who made the difference between them winning and losing. Or if it cost $5000 to save a life (every time, not on average), you'd want to be sure you donated the 5000th dollar. That's totally understandable (if I'm interpreting you correctly), but I'm not sure it's a helpful way of thinking about things in this case. Yes, marginal cost effectiveness is important— that's why we think about neglectedness. But once you've selected a cost effective charity, the usefulness of the concept breaks down a bit. (At least in IMO).  Sure, perhaps in some sense the 5000th dollar is more valuable than the other 4999, because it ticked the counter over. But it wouldn't have been the 5000th dollar if the first dollar hadn't been donated. In that sense, each dollar is equally valuable— they all have an equal chance of creating that tipping point.  That's why we think probabilistically. It's impossible to know ahead of time which dollar will make the marginal difference. So we look for the charities which give the best odds. That's part of what GiveWell does— their recommended charities are ones they think can make the best use of marginal funding. At that point, every dollar counts, whether it's the 1st or the 5000th. This is a team effort, and your contributions aren't less valuable just because someone else happened to give the final dollar 💙
Kestrel🔸3
1
0

I'll try to phrase this question as: let's say the standard EA cost-effectiveness threshold for saving a life is $5000 (that's roughly what it is). Are there any charities (presumably EA ones) where if I donate $5,000 (enough to save a life on average), I can be

  • nearly certain (let's say 95% sure) that my cash has been spent in ways that caused at least one life to be saved
  • that would not have been saved if I had not given them $5,000?

Great question, and I'm not sure there actually is one at present, because charities that are significantly more cost-effective than this threshold or that can demonstrate conclusive lifesaving at about this threshold tend to acquire donation reserves so additional money to them doesn't result in them being able to spend it - that's basically why the threshold exists, it's sort of determined by the amount of money EA-inclined donors have available to direct.

Although actually now I think of it there might be something to do with HIV treatment now that PEPFAR money has been pulled. If someone with HIV doesn't get HIV treatment they will die (unless they are very rarely the person who is naturally immune). And there's a huge funding gap in that space. So if I were so inclined to care about concreteness in the way you do, that's where I'd go hunting.

Reply
questionhaver87331
0
0

Any specific recommendations?

Reply
Comments2
Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Larks6
0
0

This post is a near-exact duplicate of your previous post; please don't spam the forum like this.

Reply
Tyler Kolota1
0
0

In addition to looking for concrete feedback on small-to-medium donations, there are ways to direct an even larger amount of funds with your donations so they have more impact.

See here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/BFbNymbn4ukmKWHrX/donation-multiplier-stacking-directing-1-27x-to-6-6x-more

Reply
More from questionhaver8733
View more
Curated and popular this week
Relevant opportunities
View more