Thanks for raising this. A large‑scale, preventable humanitarian crisis with mass civilian suffering clearly belongs on the EA radar—at minimum as a candidate problem for more systematic investigation. Right now the post reads more like a signal (“why aren’t we talking about this?”) than a case, so it may not spark the engagement you’re hoping for.

Two quick suggestions that could help:

1. Recast as a Quick Take or add a two‑paragraph “why this matters” section. Even a concise sketch—e.g. expected mortality, tractable intervention channels (cash relief, medical supply corridors, policy advocacy), and how they compare on cost‑effectiveness to other EA global‑health staples—would give readers a foothold.
2. Pose a few concrete questions for the community. For example:
   • What existing orgs have the logistical reach to deliver aid inside Gaza right now, and what are their marginal funding gaps?
   • How do political‑risk–adjusted cost‑effectiveness estimates compare with GiveWell‑style benchmarks?
   • Are there neglected advocacy levers (e.g. U.S. or EU policy pressure) where an additional EA dollar or career choice could move substantial resources?

Framing it this way signals that you recognise the need for the usual EA toolkit—scale, neglectedness, tractability—while inviting others to help fill in the numbers. I’d be keen to see a deeper dive or a collaborative back‑of‑the‑envelope if you (or anyone reading) has the bandwidth.

Sofia, love this framework—and love what you're doing with Hive!

Your post sparked a thought: Many constraints you mention (funding, visa support, networks) are actually transferable within EA. Yet we optimize mostly at the "cause area → org" level, not "whose potential is trapped by a solvable constraint?"

What if your calibration tools included asking: "What resources could the community provide to make this realistic for me?" Things like:

• Micro-grants for career pivots
• "Lendable" operations talent
• Treating introductions as community infrastructure, not private assets

I suspect many high-impact projects never happen because founders correctly identify they lack resource X, without realizing it's sitting idle elsewhere in the community. Your framework helps people see constraints clearly—the next step might be making those constraints more permeable.

Yeah, the central idea is that PFGs can have operational parity (or superiority) because how they do good is in the identity of the shareholder, rather than through some way they do their operations. And stakeholders (consumers, employees, media, suppliers, partners, lenders) have a non-zero preference for the PFG (they'd rather a charity benefit from their transaction than a random shareholder). This is why they should have a competitive advantage over normal firms. 

From this competitive advantage, you potentially have an arbitrage opportunity by philanthropists. Basically channel your money through PFGs and you get more than what you pay for. 

This is a very simple and intuitively plausible mechanism for leverage for philanthropists, yet there has been very little curiosity on the potential of this model to multiply philanthropic funding. 

What might help you conceptually is not to think of donations and shareholders as a separate thing (i.e. donations are something that limits returns) but rather think of it as business where charities are the shareholders (not conferring any disadvantage moreso than any other shareholder).

The returns are not lower. They are higher, because economic actors have a non-zero preference for charities but they can operationally do what normal businesses can (hence Humanitix's meteoric rise). 

The limiting factor right now is philanthropic capital. And if philanthropists realize they can get more money to charity through this model, then they would be motivated to use it because it offers the opportunity to multiply impact. And then if the evidence base gets stronger, they can use debt (leveraged buyouts) to expand beyond what philanthropic resources would allow. 

See my below article on why PFGs should have a competitive advantage.

Stakeholder non-zero preference > business advantage > philanthropic multiplier opportunity

https://profit4good.org/from-charity-choice-to-competitive-advantage-the-power-of-profit-for-good/

Yeah you are very limited in ability to exchange equity in exchange for cash. So for regular investors you could raise money with bonds. 

The idea would be philanthropists would be in the position that for-profit investors would be in normal businesses because they could multiply their money to charity. See the below article for more information (and the whole previous blog series) 

https://profit4good.org/above-market-philanthropy-why-profit-for-good-can-surpass-normal-returns/

Then your issue is with systemically flawed reasoning overestimating the likelihood of low-probability events. The solution for that would be to adjust by some factor that adjusts for this systemic epistemic bias, and then proceed with risk-neutral EV maximization (again, with the caveats that I had mentioned in my initial comment).

Hi Lucas,

Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment and for sharing your own journey. Your kindness really means a lot, especially coming from someone who clearly understands the tension between impact and personal wellbeing.

I appreciate your concern about my health. I've actually started walking 3 miles during my work lunch (while having my Huel) and have been more careful with dietary choices, which has been helping significantly with both physical and mental health. The struggles I described were real, but I'm actively working to manage them better.

I deeply respect your decision to prioritize wellbeing and relationships. You're absolutely right that sustainability matters, and I appreciate you sharing that perspective. For me, though, I feel we're at a particularly critical moment for the Profit for Good movement - with growing momentum from the Amsterdam conference, key stakeholders becoming aligned, and the potential to catalyze something much larger. Sometimes historical moments call for temporary sacrifice.

I'm not advocating this approach for everyone, and I certainly don't think less of anyone who chooses balance. But given where PFG stands right now - on the cusp of catalyzing a movement that could eventually redirect billions to effective causes - I feel compelled to push harder for a bit longer. Perhaps once we've established stronger foundations, I'll be able to step back and find more balance.

Your point about being a sustainable role model resonates though. Maybe the real challenge is finding ways to demonstrate that this work can eventually be done without such extreme trade-offs, once we build the right infrastructure and support systems.

Thanks again for reaching out. It genuinely helps to know others have walked similar paths and found their own ways forward.

I appreciate you sharing your blogposts on the EA forum. Reminds me also to read your other good blog posts that you do not share on the forum.