So I clicked through to their page, and the top blog post is about how the GHO has named Carrie Underwood the US Happiness Promoter of the Year, and then goes on to explain that she donates to (what appear to be) particularly inefficient means of producing happiness.
The next post after that is about how GHO has named some magazine editor the Swedish Happiness Promoter of the Year — again, probably not a particularly efficient way to spread happiness.
Looking through the various ‘About’ pages, I see lots of altruism but not much claim of ‘effective.’ Can you say more about why you think they should be added to the post above?
This seems reasonable. I guess they’re either not effective, or not providing evidence that they’re effective.
Their stated goals are altruistic and consequentialist, with concern for both animals and the distant future. They’re operated by utilitarians like Ludwig Lindstrom, James Evans, and Jasper Ostman, supported by Peter Singer; they want cultured meat, and seem to want to apply scientific research and measurement to improving welfare (this is the most promising of their policy proposals) I guess as you say, they’re altruistic only.
These activities plausibly belong in an EA portfolio, so I hope they can lift their game!
(If anyone from GHO can provide further information, this seems to be a suitable time and place.)
Great, Luke!
I think we should include Global Happiness Organisation as an effective altruist charity; one that rides across these four categories.
So I clicked through to their page, and the top blog post is about how the GHO has named Carrie Underwood the US Happiness Promoter of the Year, and then goes on to explain that she donates to (what appear to be) particularly inefficient means of producing happiness.
The next post after that is about how GHO has named some magazine editor the Swedish Happiness Promoter of the Year — again, probably not a particularly efficient way to spread happiness.
Looking through the various ‘About’ pages, I see lots of altruism but not much claim of ‘effective.’ Can you say more about why you think they should be added to the post above?
This seems reasonable. I guess they’re either not effective, or not providing evidence that they’re effective.
Their stated goals are altruistic and consequentialist, with concern for both animals and the distant future. They’re operated by utilitarians like Ludwig Lindstrom, James Evans, and Jasper Ostman, supported by Peter Singer; they want cultured meat, and seem to want to apply scientific research and measurement to improving welfare (this is the most promising of their policy proposals) I guess as you say, they’re altruistic only.
These activities plausibly belong in an EA portfolio, so I hope they can lift their game!
(If anyone from GHO can provide further information, this seems to be a suitable time and place.)