Posts

Comments

Comment by turnercore on Donation Plans for 2017 · 2018-02-12T18:12:31.701Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · EA · GW

This was a great write-up of your method. I wasn't aware of the Paypal Giving Fund, but I'm so glad you shared.

Comment by turnercore on Open Thread #39 · 2018-02-12T16:49:04.589Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · EA · GW

If you put on a donation event, is it better to keep donations for global EA causes, or to tie the event in with a logical charity (art charity for art event, or a local charity). I prefer EA causes, but the event might be weaker since most people don't think in an EA way. I don't want to ruin the good for want of the perfect. What would you do?

Comment by turnercore on Open Thread #39 · 2018-02-12T16:46:43.689Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · EA · GW

That was great, I've read about a lot of those things already, but it gave me some more reading material. Fantastic!

The one I'd never really heard anyone say was "An awareness of the risks of developing expensive new habits / increased standards of living i.e. huge future expense for temporary boost in happiness thanks to the hedonic treadmill." - Where did that idea come from?

Comment by turnercore on New Effective Altruism course syllabus · 2018-02-08T20:35:34.436Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · EA · GW

Thanks for this, it's a good resource for teachers and learners alike!

Comment by turnercore on EA Funds hands out money very infrequently - should we be worried? · 2018-02-08T20:32:51.223Z · score: 2 (4 votes) · EA · GW

I understand the desire of the fund to ensure the money is being handed out optimally, but there's two issues that worry me. First, like investing, there is often a compounding effect to altruism - you help someone locally and they are able to improve the local economy, help others, etc. We may be missing out on the benefits of donating now the current fund system. While there is an argument for giving later vs giving now, Assuming the money isn't properly invested and compounding (it may well be), then we're certainly losing out. People would be better off investing the money and giving it when people are ready to receive it.

Another issue is that by giving large grants there's a greater risk than many small donations. Over or underestimated project costs, inefficiencies, and the like contribute to a chance a donation ends up misallocated or wasted. These mistakes will certainly happen, but with large one-time grants, the risk is larger. Isn't the whole point of the fund to diversify and reduce risk and inefficiencies?

It seems like it's less risky and more efficient to just donate directly to the charities in the index. In fact, couldn't the fund just list where they recommended donations go at any given moment?