Please take my consideration in moderation. I have a vested interest here. Also, I really love 80,000 hours and givewell, so I focus on the criticism for expediency: 80,000 highlights tobacco control in the developing world as one of the most important issues. However, I think they overestimate its neglectedness. As the tobacco atlas illustrates there is almost perfect symmetry between the research in the area and advocacy because you can see exactly what ‘solutions’ are required. Additionally, they underestimate the tractability of the problem. I don’t even see how they generated their ratings—seems to be pulled out of their ass—excuse my language. This all being said, I reckon they grossly underestimate the scale of the problem—I think it blows biosecurity or nuclear security out of the water. It is the leading preventable cause of death and it is 100% certain unlikely biosecurity or nuclear security disasters. Additionally, the GiveWell open philanthropy project evaluation of developing world tobacco control is laughable, and focusses almost entirely on the WHO MPOWER recommendations. Gosh, who did that research?
Additionally, they underestimate the tractability of the problem.
Your post would be more convincing if you would provide an argument for why you think the cause is tractable.
Additionally, the GiveWell open philanthropy project evaluation of developing world tobacco control is laughable, and focusses almost entirely on the WHO MPOWER recommendations. Gosh, who did that research?
Insulting people isn’t helpful. It’s not a full investigation of the course area but as they say a limited look at the subject.
Please take my consideration in moderation. I have a vested interest here. Also, I really love 80,000 hours and givewell, so I focus on the criticism for expediency: 80,000 highlights tobacco control in the developing world as one of the most important issues. However, I think they overestimate its neglectedness. As the tobacco atlas illustrates there is almost perfect symmetry between the research in the area and advocacy because you can see exactly what ‘solutions’ are required. Additionally, they underestimate the tractability of the problem. I don’t even see how they generated their ratings—seems to be pulled out of their ass—excuse my language. This all being said, I reckon they grossly underestimate the scale of the problem—I think it blows biosecurity or nuclear security out of the water. It is the leading preventable cause of death and it is 100% certain unlikely biosecurity or nuclear security disasters. Additionally, the GiveWell open philanthropy project evaluation of developing world tobacco control is laughable, and focusses almost entirely on the WHO MPOWER recommendations. Gosh, who did that research?
Your post would be more convincing if you would provide an argument for why you think the cause is tractable.
Insulting people isn’t helpful. It’s not a full investigation of the course area but as they say a limited look at the subject.