I think what you’re saying here is that there are some great causes that can be genuinely hard to quantify, and that the majority of those are essentially R&D where profit isn’t the motive.
Those are great points, no doubt about it. Obviously we’d want to quantify as much as possible, but in the end, especially for R&D type situations, it ain’t gonna happen.
(Though you can at least estimate what can be gained in the government case—start with available statistics for people in that country, and compare for those in a roughly similar country with a different political structure—that’s probably your best-case improvement)
Estimating the efficacy of an overthrow plot, or the long term benefit of pro-?archy education would still be difficult… but with the above you’d still be closer to calculating EV :p
That said, for most people looking into those causes, donating isn’t a good idea—they’d probably mis-allocate the funds. My grandma doesn’t know how to rank life-extending therapies by promise, let alone correct for the population size of those who could be treated.
Much better to simply donate to the low hanging fruit, causing the cost of saving a human life to rise… and thereby causing more educated/R&D-competent philanthropists to investigate the causes you discussed.
My only point of disagreement is that I don’t think the majority of charities whose good effects are hard to quantify (HtQ) in terms of lives saved are R&D, unless you count something like education for women before the effects on reproduction were observed as R&D.
I think HtQ projects might fall into two categories, R&D and improving qualia.
It’s R&D until we have a known, repeatable way to get the result we want :p
Improving qualia strikes me as giving up too soon—sure we can’t perfectly quantify quality of life, happiness, social adjustment, music appreciation, and well-roundedness—but it’s still useful to use what we can when deciding to improve the world on these axis.
Hey Nancy,
I think what you’re saying here is that there are some great causes that can be genuinely hard to quantify, and that the majority of those are essentially R&D where profit isn’t the motive.
Those are great points, no doubt about it. Obviously we’d want to quantify as much as possible, but in the end, especially for R&D type situations, it ain’t gonna happen.
(Though you can at least estimate what can be gained in the government case—start with available statistics for people in that country, and compare for those in a roughly similar country with a different political structure—that’s probably your best-case improvement)
Estimating the efficacy of an overthrow plot, or the long term benefit of pro-?archy education would still be difficult… but with the above you’d still be closer to calculating EV :p
That said, for most people looking into those causes, donating isn’t a good idea—they’d probably mis-allocate the funds. My grandma doesn’t know how to rank life-extending therapies by promise, let alone correct for the population size of those who could be treated.
Much better to simply donate to the low hanging fruit, causing the cost of saving a human life to rise… and thereby causing more educated/R&D-competent philanthropists to investigate the causes you discussed.
Cheers, -wfg
My only point of disagreement is that I don’t think the majority of charities whose good effects are hard to quantify (HtQ) in terms of lives saved are R&D, unless you count something like education for women before the effects on reproduction were observed as R&D.
I think HtQ projects might fall into two categories, R&D and improving qualia.
It’s R&D until we have a known, repeatable way to get the result we want :p
Improving qualia strikes me as giving up too soon—sure we can’t perfectly quantify quality of life, happiness, social adjustment, music appreciation, and well-roundedness—but it’s still useful to use what we can when deciding to improve the world on these axis.