I think one thing about this cause area that is particularly interesting is that it has (to my eyes) strong marketing potential in the developed world. That is to say, because large numbers of people have experience using spectacles, the benefits are a very "easy sell" and there are also clear engagement touchpoints (Opticians, annual workplace eyetests etc) For example, you could easily imagine a partnership with an optician to "buy one pair, donate one pair" on new glasses sold. So i'm particularly interested in the are as potentially an area where an EA organisation could primarily engage or work with non-effective altruist donors. (Eg. even if at the margin, we felt that this was less effective than e.g malaria nets if the intervention is still highly effective and the counterfactual dollar would otherwise not have been donated at all it would be a very positive intervention).
I find some of the comments posted here a bit unhelpful from a communications point of view. Frankly they read like prepared/PR statements.(lots of “excited” people who also happen to be employed/connected to CEA ) It would be helpful if people could clarify if they are posting in a professional or personal capacity going forward.
My basic takeaway from all of this is not who is right/wrong so much as that EA professional organisations should act more like professional organisations. While it may be temporarily less enjoyable I would expect overall the organisations with things like HR professionals, safeguarding policies, regular working hours, offices in normal cities and work/life boundaries to be significantly more effective contributors to EA
I’m less interested in “debating whether a person in a villa in a tropical paradise got a vegan burger delivered fast enough” or “whether it’s appropriate for your boss to ask you to pick up their ADHD medication from a Mexican pharmacy” or “if $58,000 of all inclusive world travel plus $1000 a month stipend is a $70,000 salary”? Than in interrogating whether EA wouldn’t be better off with more “boring” organisations led by adults with significant professional experience managing others, where the big company drama is the quality of coffee machine in the office canteen.
I think this post fails on three really important metrics:
1)the EA forum is a highly selective non-representative sample. Its not at all legitimate to suggest the views of people
2)the EA forum is a forum for discussion; it is not a way to
[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]
I think this is exciting - what I would like to see at this stage is a board or advisory group with members both with predominately EA and predominately Muslim views who can review your activities and give you advice from both perspectives. I’m sure you’ve considered that but it seems like the missing bit in terms of feedback and development at the moment.
It would be a longer piece of work to engage with the model here, intuitively I find the estimate surprising
However I'd just say that the fact you've undertaken this process at all is valuable, and I think both the campaign and model will be good proto-examples for the future of how EA has tried to engage with policy change work.
I thought this was a really interesting post, thanks! Did you have a full time job while working on your pilot project? If so I'd be interested to know how you navigated your time and any tips you have on that
This is a good article. I don't think the point on farm animal welfare can possibly be correct though. There are many animal welfare charities and organisations (as well as many commercial players) that while they don't focus on farm animals exclusively or with the same mindset, surely dominate the "farm animal welfare" space.
I think one thing about this cause area that is particularly interesting is that it has (to my eyes) strong marketing potential in the developed world. That is to say, because large numbers of people have experience using spectacles, the benefits are a very "easy sell" and there are also clear engagement touchpoints (Opticians, annual workplace eyetests etc) For example, you could easily imagine a partnership with an optician to "buy one pair, donate one pair" on new glasses sold. So i'm particularly interested in the are as potentially an area where an EA organisation could primarily engage or work with non-effective altruist donors. (Eg. even if at the margin, we felt that this was less effective than e.g malaria nets if the intervention is still highly effective and the counterfactual dollar would otherwise not have been donated at all it would be a very positive intervention).
I find some of the comments posted here a bit unhelpful from a communications point of view. Frankly they read like prepared/PR statements.(lots of “excited” people who also happen to be employed/connected to CEA ) It would be helpful if people could clarify if they are posting in a professional or personal capacity going forward.
My basic takeaway from all of this is not who is right/wrong so much as that EA professional organisations should act more like professional organisations. While it may be temporarily less enjoyable I would expect overall the organisations with things like HR professionals, safeguarding policies, regular working hours, offices in normal cities and work/life boundaries to be significantly more effective contributors to EA
I’m less interested in “debating whether a person in a villa in a tropical paradise got a vegan burger delivered fast enough” or “whether it’s appropriate for your boss to ask you to pick up their ADHD medication from a Mexican pharmacy” or “if $58,000 of all inclusive world travel plus $1000 a month stipend is a $70,000 salary”? Than in interrogating whether EA wouldn’t be better off with more “boring” organisations led by adults with significant professional experience managing others, where the big company drama is the quality of coffee machine in the office canteen.
Apologies for the mistake!
I think this post fails on three really important metrics: 1)the EA forum is a highly selective non-representative sample. Its not at all legitimate to suggest the views of people 2)the EA forum is a forum for discussion; it is not a way to
I think this is exciting - what I would like to see at this stage is a board or advisory group with members both with predominately EA and predominately Muslim views who can review your activities and give you advice from both perspectives. I’m sure you’ve considered that but it seems like the missing bit in terms of feedback and development at the moment.
It would be a longer piece of work to engage with the model here, intuitively I find the estimate surprising
However I'd just say that the fact you've undertaken this process at all is valuable, and I think both the campaign and model will be good proto-examples for the future of how EA has tried to engage with policy change work.
I thought this was a really interesting post, thanks! Did you have a full time job while working on your pilot project? If so I'd be interested to know how you navigated your time and any tips you have on that
This is a good article. I don't think the point on farm animal welfare can possibly be correct though. There are many animal welfare charities and organisations (as well as many commercial players) that while they don't focus on farm animals exclusively or with the same mindset, surely dominate the "farm animal welfare" space.
I'd also be interested in this!