Comment author: Owen_Cotton-Barratt 26 January 2015 07:11:03PM 12 points [-]

Thanks Tom, you guys have done a lot on a very low budget and I'm keen to hear about what you do next. I think the value of information about different approaches makes the project very worthwhile.

One issue which I have with your $9-to-$1 figure is that your costs seem artificially low: you are not paying market rates for your employees' labour. I think this is true either in the sense of how much you would have to pay to replace them or in the sense of how much they might earn (and perhaps donate) elsewhere. It might be better to budget as paying a more normal wage to your employees with them donating the difference back to Charity Science.

Note that I actually think this is a budgeting issue for most EA orgs, which somewhat obscures counterfactual impact. I brought it up here not to pick on Charity Science but just because you guys are so amazingly frugal that it makes even more of a difference than normal!

Comment author: Raemon 27 January 2015 04:16:13PM 3 points [-]

This is a really interesting point, which I'd like to see more explored in EA transparency efforts.

Comment author: Raemon 22 October 2014 09:07:06PM 12 points [-]

I was initially in favor of the change, but after reading comments from the people who are against it, I'm less sure.

I do currently donate to MIRI. I do this somewhat cautiously - there are good reasons to still be skeptical. If I didn't donate to MIRI, I'd still think that global poverty would likely not be the best contender for "top charity", except for PR reasons.

But I do acknowledge that there are already good flagship organizations and networks for non-Global-Poverty EA, and it may be important to preserve the brand integrity of GWWC and not having it bend towards "the generic EA 'donate a lot of money' charity."

The flipside is it is good for the EA community to have a standard of giving larger amounts, and having GWWC represent that has been helpful.

I'm not certain, just wanted to note that as a "Future People" donor, there's room to think that this is at least an open question.

Comment author: Raemon 21 September 2014 03:46:31AM 2 points [-]

I think one thing that’s useful in itself is just for people to admit that they feel this pressure sometimes. Hearing that other people feel the way I do - that other people worry about whether they’re doing the best thing, and worry about what others think of them - helped me to realise that it wasn’t just me, and accept that what I was feeling was natural.

This is super important, but I think there's actually another failure mode to worry about: at some point people in my communities started talking more openly about feeling pressure / burn-out. This was helpful. But then, when a bunch of people burned out at one, the result was that several people I knew were frequently very negative (myself included), and this created a cycle of despair.

My tentative solution is that if a community or organization seems at high risk of that, people should take vacations and/or change their environment more, so that the negative feelings don't all get concentrated in one place.

View more: Prev