The EA community still donates far more to global health causes than animal welfare - I think the meat eater problem discourse seems like a much bigger deal than it actually is in the community. I personally think it's all kinda silly and significantly prioritise saving human lives

I strong downvoted because the title is unnecessarily provocative and in my opinion gives a misleading impression. I would rather not have this kind of thing on my forum feed

Interesting idea!

1. I recommend a different name, when I saw this I assumed it was about pledging around left wing causes

2. I feel like the spirit of the pledge would be to increase the 10% part with inflation? If you get a pay raise in line with inflation it seems silly to have to give half of that, since your real take home pay is unchanged. Even the further pledge is inflation linked

Would value drift be mitigated by donating to a DAF and investing there? Or are you afraid your views on where to donate might also shift

I feel pretty ok with a very mild and bounded commitment? Especially with an awareness that forcing yourself to be miserable is rarely the way to be just effective yourself. I think it's pretty valid for someone's college age self to say that impact does matter to them, and they do care about this, and don't want to totally forget about it even if it becomes inconvenient, so long as they avoid ways this is psychological even by light of those values

I've only upvoted Habryka , to reward good formatting

It seems that we're even afraid of them. I will never forget that just a week before I arrived at an org I was to be the manager of, they turned away an Economist reporter at their door...

Fwiw, I think being afraid of journalists is extremely healthy and correct, unless you really know what you're doing or have very good reason to believe they're friendly. The Economist is probably better than most, but I think being wary is still very reasonable.

Glad to hear it!

I commit to using my skills, time, and opportunities to maximize my ability to make a meaningful difference

I find the word maximise pretty scary here, for similar reasons to here. Analogous how GWWC is about giving 10%, a bounded amount, not "as much as you can possibly spare while surviving and earning money"

To me, taking a pledge to maximise seriously (especially in a naive conception where "I will get sick of this and break the pledge" or "I will burn out" aren't considerations) is a terrible idea, and I recommend that people take pledges with something more like "heavily prioritise" or "keep as one of my top prioritise" or "actually put a sincere, consistent effort into, eg by spending at least an hour per month reflecting on whether I'm having the impact I want". Of course, in practice, a pledge to maximise generally means one of those things, since people always have multiple priorities, but I like pledges to be something that could be realistically kept.

Thanks for sharing the list!

I notice most of these don't have arguments for why individual donations are better than OpenPhil just funding the org for now (beyond the implicit argument that diverse donor base is good maybe). I'm curious if any of them have good arguments there? Without it, it feels like a donor's money is just funging with OpenPhil's last dollar - this is great, but I strive to do better.

I appreciated the clear discussion of this in the AI governance section and find opportunities there particularly compelling