Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each charitable buck?

Re:Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each chari... by contravariant on Friday June 01, 2018 @10:12AM (#17205462)

While that's true something like $10,000 would at best accelerate medical research a bit, ultimately it will only save those people for whom medical research would have otherwise been too late. It's not entirely clear what this figure would be, but with billions spend each year it's probably not several per $10,000.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each chari... by Vinnl on Friday June 01, 2018 @10:31AM (#17205614)

I guess it just comes down to at what number the effectiveness flips. I'd much rather spend €2 on a bar of chocolate for some kid I encounter who just heard that he's terminally ill or something, than donate that to research. (Though perhaps at that point it's the gesture that's most valuable, not the money.)

Of course, that's also not often a choice I (have to) make. I've a set amount of donations to a few regular charities, whereas a situation as above would "count" towards my regular daily expenses rather than charitable givings.

It's probably also related to always being able to do more. Yes, maybe giving €x to one of the Givewell organisations is more effective than giving it to Make-A-Wish, but often it's not a game of either-or. I'm sure a lot of people donate to Make-A-Wish because they encounter it and sympathise with it, rather than spending effort looking for the most efficient way to spend <arbitrary amount designated for charitable donations>, so it's not even a question of effective charity vs. MAW, but MAW vs. sitting there in your savings account.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Can “effective altruism” maximise the bang for each chari... by Retric on Friday June 01, 2018 @10:54AM (#17205797)

Discovery is by it's nature a random process, so a single 10,000$ investment could with some low probability make a 30 year difference for some drug.

People only investigate a finite number of things, adding just 1 more to the early stage to the millions already tried is not likely to be useful, but we simply don't know.

PS: After that point much larger sums are involved, but even then only a finite number of tests get done and they are very dependent on funding.

[ Parent | on HN ]