For people who haven't clicked through, it might be worth mentioning that this is about insects being used as livestock for other animals.

This matters because you might consider insect farming for human consumption to be more morally ambiguous. (If insects turn out not to be sentient, and insect consumptions displaces consumption of larger, actually-sentient animals, this could be a positive for the world).

However, insects being used as livestock is more clearly negative.

I think this is the same consultation flagged by James here, right? If so, might be worth flagging that.

I really appreciate having these flagged on the forum, so thank you, I think it's a valuable public service

Glad to see you raising this. I raised a related question here (has a slightly more US-centric angle to it). In that post I do suggest some interventions, but there's not a lot of careful research behind it.

I've upvoted this comment and disagree-voted it. I was initially prone to be dubious of the suggestion. I think lots of us are motivated by important outcomes like children not dying, and linking aid to national self-interest seemed problematic, because children not dying (or other good outcomes) are not the same as national self-interest. Optimising for one is likely to lead to different aid interventions than optimising for the other. 

However I've warmed somewhat to the suggestion.

• Nick rightly pointed out that politics risks toggling the supply up and down. (or rather down!) A clearer link to self-interest does indeed help.
• For those of a GiveWellian mindset, part of the reason for believing that some interventions are more effective than others is a "sceptical prior" - ie a default assumption that interventions don't work in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Aid which has a hard-nosed link to self-interest (eg better enabling markets for donor country exports) might be more likely to have the evidence needed.

On balance, I still think I disagree with the suggestion, mostly because a hardnosed link to self-interest probably won't be compelling for those who are politically opposed to aid. But I appreciate the prompt to give this some thought.

Good question, I'm sorry nobody has replied yet. I don't feel like I'm much of an expert on this, so others may be better positioned than me.

My sense is that yes, this may well be impactful, especially if it is clearly communicated. This is a meaningful move, and one that the party will feel -- all parties need financing.

To maximise effectiveness, you likely need to inform the right people. By all means, do tell your MP (assuming your MP is a Labour MP). Saying that you're willing to leave the Labour party makes you less likely to vote for them in future, and they will care about this. In fact, if it's true that it would make you less likely to vote for them in future, do tell them this explicitly, as that's probably what your MP cares about.

Cancelling your Labour membership matters to the people responsible for the finances of the party. I believe those people are probably the Treasurer and General Secretary of the party. I don't know how you would reach out to them, but if there were some way of communicating this to the right people, you could increase your impact. 

Good point here:

Another lever to consider, rather than ‘punish government for cutting aid’, is ‘telling the government that effectiveness matters to me when they decide what to cut’. Don’t know how to compare those.

If I'd given more thought to the draft letter, I might have said more on this.

I'm conscious that Jenny Chapman (who is taking over from Anneliese Dodds as Development minister) doesn't seem to have much background in development. 

If someone wrote an email which conveyed acceptance of the reality (cuts are going to happen, whether I like it or not), and which suggested that effectiveness matters, this might be viewed as a much more constructive email, which might land better and be more influential.

Sorry I didn't see this sooner. Yes, I do believe that an email will be more likely to be effective if it looks like it's not copied and pasted. My basis for this is that when I supported a group of people to campaign on ODA about 4 years ago, I asked several people, including veteran campaigners and people who have worked for an MP replying to emails for them. Those people explained that if the email looks like a copy-and-paste/boilerplate email, they will assume that it was driven by a campaign group, which carries less weight than if you do it yourself.

I'd also bear in mind that this email is unlikely to be a particularly impactful action. (but also not a zero-impact action either). So I'd be sympathetic to people putting in less effort on this email (and saving their efforts for other effective ways of making the world a better place :-)) 

Strong upvoted. I'm definitely among the people who saw the headlines, thought that it was a simple case of Musk losing, and didn't appreciate that it's potentially much less favourable to OpenAI that it appears from the headlines.