Recall the purpose of the present article. See JGWeissman’s comment. Explicitly citing tangible charities with easily measurable output is useful for discussing of effective philanthropy with people who have not thought about the topic.
I’m not at all committed to a particular cause and could easily imagine the cost-effectiveness of such highly scalable public goods being much greater. As I say above:
There are many causes that GiveWell has not yet covered and there may be charities working in them that absorb donations substantially more cost-effectively than VillageReach does.
My present interest in VillageReach over charities working in other causes is about incentive effects. VillageReach has a strong case for being outstanding at what it does and a strong case for room for more funding. I think that funding such a charity sends a message to the philanthropic world that such charities will be rewarded and produces a good incentive effect. As I said elsewhere
I believe that supporting GiveWell’s recommended charities has high expected value because I believe that doing so strengthens a culture of effective philanthropy and that in the long run this will meaningfully lower existential risk.
I would welcome any suggestions here. It seems like there might be an issue of the intended signal to the philanthropic world being misinterpreted on account of GiveWell’s (brief) history of focus on charities engaged in projects with highly tangible and measurable impact.
Upvoted.
Recall the purpose of the present article. See JGWeissman’s comment. Explicitly citing tangible charities with easily measurable output is useful for discussing of effective philanthropy with people who have not thought about the topic.
I’m not at all committed to a particular cause and could easily imagine the cost-effectiveness of such highly scalable public goods being much greater. As I say above:
My present interest in VillageReach over charities working in other causes is about incentive effects. VillageReach has a strong case for being outstanding at what it does and a strong case for room for more funding. I think that funding such a charity sends a message to the philanthropic world that such charities will be rewarded and produces a good incentive effect. As I said elsewhere
I would welcome any suggestions here. It seems like there might be an issue of the intended signal to the philanthropic world being misinterpreted on account of GiveWell’s (brief) history of focus on charities engaged in projects with highly tangible and measurable impact.