Thank you David, I understand much better now. It is indeed perplexing to hear that 38% of self-identified earning to give folks are giving $1000 or less, but I think your explanations do seem plausible. I guess there could also be people saving and investing now to do giving later, unless this category was a separate option in your survey.
I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying with these graphs. Are these for self-identified ETG people, or for everyone in your survey? Donation_w shows something like 60% (no y scale so not sure) of population don't give at all, is that right? And around 10% give $20K or more? Thanks.
The internet has massively increased access to art.
Thirty years ago (and prior), if you wanted to hear a song you could hope that it would play on the radio, or you could look for it in your local record store (who may not have it) and buy the record, cassette or CD.
Now, anyone with an internet connection can listen to any song ever recorded, at any time, at virtually no cost.
What the base rate for success is for this kind of work
How long this kind of work typically takes to get traction
The Nonhuman Rights Project provides a possible point of comparison. From 2013 to 2023 they raised $13.2 Million. As far as I know, they have never won a case.
Toby - I appreciated reading your updates based on the events of the last 5ish years.
I'm am wondering if you have also reconsidered the underlying analyses and assumptions that went into your initially published models? There's been a fair amount written about this; to me the best is from David Thorstad here:
I would really appreciate further analysis of family planning as an intervention. Some specific questions I’d like to see tackled:
What is the cost effectiveness of these interventions/organizations when looking at a variety of metrics (e.g. preventing maternal deaths, preventing obstetric fistula, increasing subjective well-being, increasing wealth etc.)?
Some framework for tallying these benefits.
Do these interventions lead to a permanent reduction in family size, or a temporary one?
What is the impact to farmed animals (i.e. does this intervention benefit from the meat-eater problem)?
What about climate change or other environmental impacts?
Thank you David, I understand much better now. It is indeed perplexing to hear that 38% of self-identified earning to give folks are giving $1000 or less, but I think your explanations do seem plausible. I guess there could also be people saving and investing now to do giving later, unless this category was a separate option in your survey.
I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying with these graphs. Are these for self-identified ETG people, or for everyone in your survey? Donation_w shows something like 60% (no y scale so not sure) of population don't give at all, is that right? And around 10% give $20K or more? Thanks.
The internet has massively increased access to art.
Thirty years ago (and prior), if you wanted to hear a song you could hope that it would play on the radio, or you could look for it in your local record store (who may not have it) and buy the record, cassette or CD.
Now, anyone with an internet connection can listen to any song ever recorded, at any time, at virtually no cost.
EA Animal Welfare Fund
The Nonhuman Rights Project provides a possible point of comparison. From 2013 to 2023 they raised $13.2 Million. As far as I know, they have never won a case.
>>Why present 50% as the “maximum typical”?
>>Arguably someone earning $1M+ annually should be encouraged to give a lot more than 50%
In the US tax deductions cap at 60%, so that could be a sensible place to draw a line.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/041315/tips-charitable-contributions-limits-and-taxes.asp
Cool org I've not heard of, thanks!!
Toby - I appreciated reading your updates based on the events of the last 5ish years.
I'm am wondering if you have also reconsidered the underlying analyses and assumptions that went into your initially published models? There's been a fair amount written about this; to me the best is from David Thorstad here:
https://reflectivealtruism.com/category/exaggerating-the-risks/
I would really value you engaging with the arguments he or others present, as a second kind of update.
Cheers
Thank you for trying <3
I would really appreciate further analysis of family planning as an intervention. Some specific questions I’d like to see tackled:
Here are some posts that provide a start:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/WYmJoDxJZToDcA9Bq/population-size-growth-and-reproductive-choice-highly
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/zgBmSgyWECJcbhmpc/family-planning-a-significant-opportunity-for-impact
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/BMzmCohuPYRaGPcZD/maybe-family-planning-charities-are-better-for-farmed
And here’s a really good report on one org:
https://rethinkpriorities.org/publications/family-empowerment-media
And CE has some good reports on some interventions:
https://www.charityentrepreneurship.com/health-reports