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 *  1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: MichaelDickens  (EA Profile) 28 August 2016 05:10:53PM 0 points [-]

Sure you could say that, but it doesn't matter because A = B, B = C, and C > A is still a contradiction.

Comment author: RandomEA 29 August 2016 01:02:18AM 0 points [-]

I agree that it has no effect on the merits of your argument. I'm just pointing it out because I think a clearer argument is more likely to persuade the reader. When I first read it, I thought you got the sign backwards. If the sign is backwards, then the contradiction goes away.

Comment author: MichaelDickens  (EA Profile) 27 August 2016 03:22:19PM 0 points [-]

You could claim that causing someone to come into existence and have a happy life but then die prematurely is a bad act. Some people do claim this, but most people don't and I thought it was sufficiently implausible that it was worth rejecting. If you do make this assumption, it raises new concerns.

Comment author: RandomEA 28 August 2016 12:39:47AM *  0 points [-]

You wrote that act B (nonexistence) is greater than or equal to act C (full happy life). I understand that they're equal under a standard person affecting view, but I'm asking if there's any view under which act B is greater. If there's no such view, it may make more sense to say B = C instead of B ≥ C, as the latter equation implies that such a view does exist.

Comment author: RandomEA 27 August 2016 10:36:28AM *  0 points [-]

You can choose between three possible acts. When you perform act A, a child (let’s call her Afiya) is born, gets malaria, and dies. Under act B, you cause Afiya not to be born. According to assumption (1), this act is not worse than A. Standard person-affecting view says that it is not wrong to cause someone to exist whose life is net positive, so A is not worse than B. Under act C, you cause Afiya to be born and prevent her from getting malaria. This beats act A according to (2), and is not better than act B according to (1). Thus, A = B, B ≥ C, and C > A. But this creates a contradiction: B > A and B = A.

If the fact that "act [B] is not worse than A" leads to the equation A = B, then why does the fact "[act C] is not better than act B" lead to the equation B ≥ C? It would make more sense if you simply said B = C, as the current equation seems to raise the possibility that B is better than C without offering any justification for that view.

Comment author: ChrisCundy 01 August 2016 04:08:08AM 0 points [-]

Thank you for the feedback!

Comment author: RandomEA 14 August 2016 07:40:47PM 0 points [-]

It may also be a good idea to a) change "meta" to "movement building" because the latter term is clearer and b) change "prioritization" to "prioritization (causes, careers, and charities)" to clarify that it is more than just cause prioritization.

View more: Next