Comment by matthewmarkus | Hacker News Reader

Comment by matthewmarkus | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Oh boy! I'm going to say some unpopular things here, so please remember you asked for feedback.

I immediately click on Funds->Animal Welfare since my company, Pembient, deals in wildlife and I've had a lot of (negative) interactions with the conservation industry. I see that the fund targets "farmed animals" and even then carries a warning:

"Risk-averse donors might choose not to focus on animal welfare because the evidence base for the most effective interventions is not yet as strong as in areas like global health and development."

Excellent! But then I look at the manager's background. It seems he has extensive dealings with The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Further, at least one of the grants from the fund goes towards a HSUS project on broiler chicken welfare. OK, that's fine; however, digging deeper I find that at least 5% of the grant covers administrative costs (i.e., $50k). Now, money being fungible, that means money has been freed up for other activities. From my perspective, that would include HSUS's interference in The Black Rhino Genome Project:

https://experiment.com/u/yHldOQ

And that's the problem with donating to large non-profits! They have so much going on that it is hard to track all the externalities.

Let me add that this issue, to me, is the biggest problem with Effective Altruism (EA). It says, "You're 'smart,' go out and become a wealthy hedge fund manager. That's the best use of your time, and then donate the proceeds to things that matter." I would counter and say that if you're truly 'smart,' you should be directly working on problems that matter. Doing something ancillary and then giving to a group of people who might be viewed as less 'smart' because they didn't follow the EA path is internally inconsistent. I think it reveals what EA is: A moral salve to justify forgoing work on hard problems to accumulate wealth for selfish purposes. Not that there is anything wrong with that per se, I just don't like the marketing on top of it.

I said I would be harsh. Apologies, if I've been too harsh.

Thanks for the comment — we welcome feedback, even if it's harsh, so no worries!

That said, I think some of this hinges on a naïve interpretation of what effective altruism is about. The idea of 'earning to give' is counterintuitive ('do more good by working in finance - whut?'), and so has been one that the media has run with. Accordingly, I think it's considerably overrepresented in many people's minds compared to how most people in the EA community actually think about things[1]. We're always looking for talented people to do direct work, and we see one of our missions as finding and attracting people to work on important issues — whether that be in animal welfare, global development, politics, research etc. etc. Indeed, nearly everyone working on this project left significantly higher-paying jobs to come work at CEA because we think it offers the best chance for us to have a positive impact.

Agree that donating to large non-profits does have the problem of the money displacing unrestricted funds (in effect, subsidising other projects within the org). That's part of the reason most of the non-profits we end up supporting are fairly small and tightly focused on a specific, well-validated intervention. We're putting previous grant history up is so that donors can make an informed decision about whether or not they think a fund manager will represent their values, but it's not necessarily an indication of where grants will be made in future.

[1] E.g. see https://80000hours.org/2015/07/80000-hours-thinks-that-only-...

Thanks for the reply. It does sound like you're thinking these things through. Good luck!

Do you think that rather than considering smartness as a linear scale, it might make more sense to consider different people as having aptitudes in different areas? I could see one person being an excellent and effective animal welfare activist and another being a top performing hedge fund manager; it's unlikely the two could switch roles and perform equally well.

Regarding HSUS, I'm not sufficiently well versed to have an opinion there, but it is theoretically possible for an organization to do things you don't like, but still be more of a net positive than the available alternatives, especially when the bulk of the donation will go toward a specific initiative. Maybe they believe that's the case here?

We do need many more talented people to found and work for effective non-profits. At CEA, we've found it hard to hire extremely talented people, as many of the people we want to hire want to continue donating instead! Non-profits often find it hard to attract top talent, in part because they tend to pay lower salaries, working at a non-profit is less prestigious, and because talented people tend to want to work with other talented people. We have been impressed with Y Combinator's approach here, they're trying to incentivize talented people to found really effective non-profits, and then help them scale. We're hoping that if donors are willing to fund these new promising projects, many more people will be drawn to the non-profit world. On the other hand, just like founding a company is not for everyone, neither is working at a non-profit. We should each consider our comparative advantage. As tempestn mentioned, some people might be extremely good at their day-job and be well compensated for it, but might not necessarily make excellent activists. In that case, that person might be able to help the causes they care about most by donating to effective charities. We need all kinds of people!

Is there an EA job board somewhere? Maybe people aren't interested due to pay, but I doubt many people are aware the jobs exist in the first place. I was under the impression it was a small pool of applicants but a much smaller pool of job openings.

80,000 Hours has a very simple job board (https://80000hours.org/job-board/)

While there aren't many job openings posted, many effective organizations are often open to hiring talented individuals at other times throughout the year. It's definitely worth dropping organizations a quick email to let them know you're interested in future opportunities. If any of you are interested in working at CEA in the future, head to our website and ask to be added to our recruitment email list. We'll be hiring for 4-6 positions later in the year.

There's this facebook group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1062957250383195/) where EA orgs tend to post their jobs, along with other jobs from orgs that are interesting to EAs even if not explicitly EA.

I'm not going to deny the existence of comparative advantage. At the same time, I'm not going to claim we live in a passionless universe either. If a hedge fund manager desires to beat the market, she is going to study the financials, etc. If she is also passionate about boiler chickens, why would she outsource that to someone else? Unless, of course, her passion for the market is greater than her love for boiler chickens. And, if that's the case, can you say she cares for boiler chickens or only wishes to care for boiler chickens. There is a huge difference. As they say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

As far as HSUS is concerned, I'm viewing the issue from my context. EAF wanted feedback, and I gave it. More than likely I'm wrong and perhaps the greater good is being served; although, it would help if that were being measured in some way.

Finally, from what I've seen, I do believe many non-profits could use a hand from people with quantitative backgrounds. If those people ascribe to EA, they'll never join a non-profit.

FWIW, about 11% of people at our last conference identified themselves as following an earn-to-give path, and we think that's about the right proportion. We don't think everyone should earn-to-give, but we do think it's a path that some people should consider.

I spent about a year earning-to-give as a pharmacist myself before I realised that I could probably do much more good by joining CEA and doing direct work. I gained lots of valuable, real-world experience working in hospitals, and also at big organizations like the Red Cross, this experience not only helped me donate to charity in the short-term, but also to use that experience in my direct work now. I hope that many people will follow a similar path.

> Let me add that this issue, to me, is the biggest problem with Effective Altruism (EA). It says, "You're 'smart,' go out and become a wealthy hedge fund manager. That's the best use of your time, and then donate the proceeds to things that matter."

I think there's kind of a spectrum in EA, where you can choose your preferred intensity level. There's "soft EA", which is the basic "I'm going to evaluate these different charities and donate to the most effective ones, so I'm doing the most good with my money". The things like "I'm going to choose my career such that I make the most money with which to donate" are more "hard EA", which is an option but certainly not a requirement. I'm more on the soft side myself and never really found it lacking, nor have I ever felt criticized for that position.

I'm glad to hear this! We want to encourage people to incorporate EA into their life as much as they feel comfortable with, and everyone's circumstances are different.

And note you can be a 'hard EA' without earning to give. Research, policy/politics, founding or working for a valuable organisation - these are all great career paths, depending on your particular circumstances and skills. See https://80000hours.org/career-guide/ for more!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com