Comment author: RandomEA 01 June 2017 08:23:37PM 5 points [-]

One option is to split the EA Community Fund into a Movement/Community Building Fund (which could fund organizations that engage in outreach, support local groups, build online platforms etc.) and a Cause/Means Prioritization Fund (which could fund organizations that engage in cause prioritization, explore new causes, research careers, study the policy process etc.).

Comment author: david_reinstein 20 May 2017 06:23:46PM 1 point [-]

That page is good, but it would be better if they could give an apples-to-apples comparison. There must be domestic US charities that aim to save lives domestically, from which a 'cost per life saved' estimate could be drawn. ... Or a developing country charity that provides a similar service as the US charities mentioned (education, neo-natal care, etc), from which many more people could be serverd for the same $.

Comment author: RandomEA 22 May 2017 12:17:47AM *  1 point [-]

I think the best comparison to the Against Malaria Foundation would be the Nurse Family Partnership (NFP), which also primarily benefits young children (albeit through a different intervention). Olds et al. (2014) reports the results of an RCT examining the effect of NFP on child mortality and maternal mortality,[1] and GiveWell has an (old) estimate of the cost per child served for the Nurse Family Partnership.[2] You could potentially use these two sources to arrive at a rough estimate of the cost per death averted for NFP.

[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/1886653

[2] http://www.givewell.org/united-states/charities/nfp

Comment author: RandomEA 17 May 2017 02:39:43AM 1 point [-]

Do you happen to know what the most cost effective American charity is and how it compares to GiveDirectly? I think that information could be useful when making the case that it's better to focus on developing countries.

Comment author: RandomEA 05 March 2017 04:30:30PM 0 points [-]

It could be helpful to allow us to subscribe to receive email notification of new posts.

Comment author: RandomEA 25 December 2016 12:14:45AM 2 points [-]

How did you come up with the estimate that 30% of undergraduates choosing careers care about their social impact?

Comment author: Jeff_Kaufman 07 December 2016 02:37:35AM 2 points [-]

Does that mean 2/3 of the estimated benefit comes from things other than averting deaths of children under 5?

Comment author: RandomEA 07 December 2016 07:54:55AM *  5 points [-]

That's my understanding. Based on B78, B79, and B80 of the Bed Nets sheet, it appears that 27% of the benefit comes from development effects, 36% of the benefit comes from adult mortality reduction, and 37% of the benefit comes from child mortality reduction.

Edit: GiveWell updated their spreadsheet to reflect the fact that what they previously labelled as the "percent of benefit coming from adult mortality reduction" is actually the "percent of benefit coming from age 5 and over mortality reduction" and what they previously labelled as the "percent of benefit coming from child mortality reduction" is actually the "percent of benefit coming from under 5 mortality reduction."

Comment author: RandomEA 06 December 2016 10:20:15PM *  2 points [-]

A chicken weighs 1.83kg, so taking this survey data literally would mean that survey respondents are consuming 11.6 chickens per year and respondents in the treatment group reduce their consumption by 0.26 servings per week, which assuming treatment effects continue to hold and don’t decline (a strong assumption) and projecting those effects out annually, would be a reduction of roughly 1.1 chickens per year per respondent.

Does your calculation account for the fact that only part of the chicken actually gets converted into meat that is eaten? There are approximately 9 billion chickens slaughtered each year in the United States (a country of roughly 300 million people), so the mean consumption should be around 30 chickens a year.

Comment author: RandomEA 06 December 2016 09:48:17PM 7 points [-]

GiveWell estimate, although this is not to be taken too seriously, $3,500 to AMF saves a child’s life.

It should be noted that their November 2016 estimate is that the marginal cost per under-5 death averted is $9,161 (B55 of the Bed Nets sheet), while the cost per life saved equivalent is $3,376 (B74 of the Bed Nets sheet).

Comment author: RandomEA 31 August 2016 11:05:47PM 1 point [-]

Would it be a good idea to create a centralized mechanism that would allow EAs who have a job to indicate their willingness to review the resumes of EAs who are seeking a job in their profession? Job seeking EAs do currently have the ability to seek help from EAs with jobs, but some of them may be reluctant to do so unless the other person has explicitly indicated their willingness to spend time doing this.

Comment author: Gleb_T  (EA Profile) 13 August 2016 09:44:00PM 0 points [-]

Yup, scared straight is a famous example, but not a charity. Neither are the social interventions at the link. I'd love to see some charities that had scholarly studies proving them either ineffective or net negative.

Comment author: RandomEA 30 August 2016 10:52:53PM 0 points [-]

I suppose it could be done with interventions instead of charities.

View more: Next