Thanks David! This is puzzling, but it might be what Elliot is pointing out. That AW is still a priority, but somehow this is not reflected on fundraising unfortunately.
Agreed completely! As a fundraiser myself, and working on raising funds for animal welfare for the past 12 years, I have seen and experienced this "decline" of the animal welfare topic within the EA movement in the recent years.
Five years ago, when you attended an EA Conference, you would see entire floors, panels, discussions and speakers from the Animal Welfare movement, divided into the different interventions, type of advocacy, activities. Today, you're lucky if you see one topic on animal welfare, one panel (usually on hot things for the EA community such as Insect farming), but no longer playing a protagonist role in the gatherings. I understand also how many people in the movement would want to mix things. Have AI in the same conference where you have AW, and global catastrophe and future pandemics. But what happens when you do this, is that inevitably you prioritize one in detriment of the other. And now AI has taken the room completely because its just the hot thing to be discussed at the moment.
I don't want to say one is more important than the other. I'm not here for that and who am I to judge on this. But there's enough space to have dedicated discussions on all, and to incentivize funding on it all.
Perhaps is also up to us, the users and individuals within the EA movement, to point that out and to start promoting, requesting and claiming that we want animal welfare to have a more prominent role again.
This is a fascinating topic, and I truly appreciate you having the courage to bring it up, Abraham. More people in this forum should be open to discussions like this. As someone who has worked in fundraising for nearly a decade, I share many of your perspectives and wanted to contribute my thoughts as well.
First, I completely agree that a disproportionate level of deference is given to a handful of major funders. In my view, the primary reason for this is the lack of funding diversity. When 30%–50% (or more) of an organization’s revenue comes from just a few key funders, it's almost inevitable that their opinions will heavily influence strategic decisions. In many cases, this isn't just a preference—it's a financial necessity. However, I also believe that funders' recommendations should be seen as valuable guidance rather than directives that must be followed unquestioningly.
Second, why do organizations give these funders so much weight? It’s not just about financial power. Many organizations trust that these funders, given their experience and broad oversight, are well-positioned to provide informed opinions, despite their team's experience or not in the field. Ideally, these insights should be grounded in objective data rather than personal biases or professional relationships.
Third, I do think there’s a kind of "inner circle" of influencers who shape the broader conversation—especially in fields like animal welfare. This influence is likely exacerbated by the limited number of evaluators and the lack of diverse methodologies for assessing interventions, new organizations, and meta-level work. Without a variety of evaluative perspectives, the same voices tend to dominate.
That said, I’m really encouraged to see more diverse perspectives emerging in this forum. I look forward to more thought-provoking discussions like this in the future! (Disclaimer: The views I express here are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer).
Great to understand that more and more organizations are being formed and that they still have room for more funding to grow.
However, when is someone going to raise (or continue to discuss) the point that most of the EA funds are being given to only 2 organizations? (At least for Animal Welfare). If you scope around on the websites of all these organizations, they will eventually disburse whatever they make to only ACE evaluated NGOs (at the moment, only 2 names stand out for many years).
I'm not taking the credit away from these 2 organizations, which are amazing btw. But at some point we need to come back talking about: 1) fair distribution of funds; 2) new systems of evaluating who is or isn't effective in the animal welfare movement; 3) come back to the discussion of who's evaluating the evaluators? I hope I find more people that agree with my thinking out there. This can become a bigger discussion. Thank you!
Thanks David! This is puzzling, but it might be what Elliot is pointing out. That AW is still a priority, but somehow this is not reflected on fundraising unfortunately.
Agreed completely! As a fundraiser myself, and working on raising funds for animal welfare for the past 12 years, I have seen and experienced this "decline" of the animal welfare topic within the EA movement in the recent years.
Five years ago, when you attended an EA Conference, you would see entire floors, panels, discussions and speakers from the Animal Welfare movement, divided into the different interventions, type of advocacy, activities. Today, you're lucky if you see one topic on animal welfare, one panel (usually on hot things for the EA community such as Insect farming), but no longer playing a protagonist role in the gatherings.
I understand also how many people in the movement would want to mix things. Have AI in the same conference where you have AW, and global catastrophe and future pandemics. But what happens when you do this, is that inevitably you prioritize one in detriment of the other. And now AI has taken the room completely because its just the hot thing to be discussed at the moment.
I don't want to say one is more important than the other. I'm not here for that and who am I to judge on this. But there's enough space to have dedicated discussions on all, and to incentivize funding on it all.
Perhaps is also up to us, the users and individuals within the EA movement, to point that out and to start promoting, requesting and claiming that we want animal welfare to have a more prominent role again.
This is a fascinating topic, and I truly appreciate you having the courage to bring it up, Abraham. More people in this forum should be open to discussions like this.
As someone who has worked in fundraising for nearly a decade, I share many of your perspectives and wanted to contribute my thoughts as well.
First, I completely agree that a disproportionate level of deference is given to a handful of major funders. In my view, the primary reason for this is the lack of funding diversity. When 30%–50% (or more) of an organization’s revenue comes from just a few key funders, it's almost inevitable that their opinions will heavily influence strategic decisions. In many cases, this isn't just a preference—it's a financial necessity. However, I also believe that funders' recommendations should be seen as valuable guidance rather than directives that must be followed unquestioningly.
Second, why do organizations give these funders so much weight? It’s not just about financial power. Many organizations trust that these funders, given their experience and broad oversight, are well-positioned to provide informed opinions, despite their team's experience or not in the field. Ideally, these insights should be grounded in objective data rather than personal biases or professional relationships.
Third, I do think there’s a kind of "inner circle" of influencers who shape the broader conversation—especially in fields like animal welfare. This influence is likely exacerbated by the limited number of evaluators and the lack of diverse methodologies for assessing interventions, new organizations, and meta-level work. Without a variety of evaluative perspectives, the same voices tend to dominate.
That said, I’m really encouraged to see more diverse perspectives emerging in this forum. I look forward to more thought-provoking discussions like this in the future!
(Disclaimer: The views I express here are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer).
Great to understand that more and more organizations are being formed and that they still have room for more funding to grow.
However, when is someone going to raise (or continue to discuss) the point that most of the EA funds are being given to only 2 organizations? (At least for Animal Welfare). If you scope around on the websites of all these organizations, they will eventually disburse whatever they make to only ACE evaluated NGOs (at the moment, only 2 names stand out for many years).
I'm not taking the credit away from these 2 organizations, which are amazing btw. But at some point we need to come back talking about: 1) fair distribution of funds; 2) new systems of evaluating who is or isn't effective in the animal welfare movement; 3) come back to the discussion of who's evaluating the evaluators?
I hope I find more people that agree with my thinking out there. This can become a bigger discussion. Thank you!