Reddit reviews Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Help Others, Do Work that Matters, and Make Smarter Choices about Giving Back

Here is my donation

===

I'd like to also just mention GiveWell, which does the same thing for Human Charities. I learned about it through Will MacAskill's Doing Good Better (which makes an argument for why it's effective to buy less meat!)

===

Also, you can support MFA and probably other effective animal charities through Amazon Smile: http://imgur.com/a/CuULJ

> Why even have your own charity if you're going to funnel to other charities. By time it gets to people what is left?

To answer this, it is quite common for one non profit to be focused on the raising of money for a related cause. They both raise and then research the best way for that money to be distributed by doing the necessary analysis of the programs in that areas, and then go on to fund them. By donating to their fund you are trusting that they will do the best job in this endeavour.

It makes sense because companies like MAC are not equipped to actually handle AIDS related issues. They are very well equipped to handle fundraising for AIDS related issues.

What is funny is your complaint against MAC of "why even have your own charity if you're going to funnel to other charities. By time it gets to people what is left?" is exactly what the Clinton Foundation doesn't do. They are both well equipped to raise money and create and implement successful programs. They still give grants to other programs as well, so they are a unique foundation in the philanthropic world.


I would recommend to you the book "Doing Good Better" by William MacAskill. He does a fantastic explanation of how normal people can analyze programs and charities and how we can utilize small amounts of donated money to do the most amount of good. Easy read, very compelling and challenges the way most people blindly donate.

I second this. They take the effective altruism stance to making a difference, and choosing your career accordingly. In addition to the 80,000 hours website, I recommend the book Doing Good Better, by Will MacAskill.

edit: fixed link; not good at mobile

I'm just gonna slide in and hijack this thread...

If you think this is good (and you totally should), just wait until you hear about Effective Altruism (EA)! In essence, it's the idea that we should do the most good we can with the limited resources that we have, and in order to do the most good we need to rigorously evaluate the causes we donate to. GiveWell, probably the most notable EA charity evaluation site, recommends the Against Malaria Foundation as one of its top charities based on extensive research assessing the overall impact-per-dollar that donors can achieve.

If you'd like to learn more about EA, check out Giving What We Can and read about how much good you can do with your Monsanto/Koch/Illuminati shill bucks. And if you'd like to delve a little deeper, check out Dr William MacAskill's Doing Good Better, which makes a compelling case for evidence-based giving, and which challenges many orthodoxies about how to do good in the world, including a defense of the long-term positive impact of sweatshop labour.

I would say no. I would recommend this book instead: "Doing Good Better" https://www.amazon.com/Doing-Good-Better-Effective-Altruism/dp/1592409660/

Easier read and meant for a general audience. What we owe each other is pretty dense.

> Consider ethical consumption, like switching to fair-trade coffee, or reducing how much meat you buy. Suppose someone stops buying chicken breasts, instead choosing vegetarian options, in order to reduce the amount of animal suffering on factory farms. Does that person make a difference? You might think not. If one person decides against buying chicken breast one day but the rest of the meat eaters on the planet continue to buy chicken, how could that possibly affect how many chickens are killed for human consumptions? When a supermarket decides how much chicken to buy, they don't care that one fewer breast was purchased on a given day. However, if thousands or millions of people stopped buying chicken breasts, the number of chickens raised for food would decrease-- supply would fall to meet demand. But then we're left with a paradox: individuals can't make a difference, but millions of individuals do. But the actions of millions of people are just the sum of the actions of many individual people. Moreover, an iron law of economics is that, in a well-functioning market, if demand for a product decreases, the quantity of the product that's supplied decreases. How, then, can we reconcile these thoughts?

> The answer lies with expected value. If you decline to buy some chicken breast, then most of the time you'll make no difference: the supermarket will buy the same amount of chicken in the future. Sometimes, however, you will make a difference. Occasionally, the manager of the store will assess the number of chicken breasts bought by consumers and decide to decrease their intake of stock, even thought they wouldn't have done so had the number of chicken breasts bought been one higher. (Perhaps they follow a rule like: "If fewer than five thousand chicken breasts were bought this month, decrease stock intake.") And when that manager does decide to decrease their stock intake, they will decrease stock by a large amount. Perhaps your decision against purchasing chicken breast will have an effort on the supermarket only one in a thousand times, but in that one time, the store manager will decide to purchase approximately one thousand fewer chicken breasts.

> This isn't just a theoretical argument. Economists have studied this issue and worked out how, on average, a consumer affects the number of animal products supplied by declining to buy that product. They estimate that, on average, if you give up one egg, total production ultimately falls by 0.91 eggs; if you give up one gallon of milk, total production falls by 0.56 gallons. Other products are somewhere in between: economists estimate that if you give up one pound of beef, beef production falls by 0.68 pounds; if you give up one pound of pork, production ultimately falls by 0.74 pounds; if you give up one pound of chicken, production ultimately falls by 0.76 pounds."

From Will MacAskill's Doing Good Better

Doing Good Better by William MacAskill is a book all about how to use your time and money to do the most good. It's a practical book written by a pragmatic writer who was one of the forerunners of the effective altruism movement.

It's a must read in my opinion.

I'm in a similar situation and stand to gain multiples of what I'd need to retire 30 years ahead of schedule in the next few years. I strongly recommend looking into "effective altruism." If you only "like" your job, maybe you and her would find more satisfaction in figuring out how to maximize your positive impact on the world. Start with this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Doing-Good-Better-Effective-Altruism/dp/1592409660

I'd absolutely not continue working my current job if my current job didn't bring me a huge amount of fulfillment or was otherwise my highest and best use of time to "do good" in the world.

Take a year off to read, think, ponder, and then re-engage on your own terms in a thoughtful way. At least that's my plan.

As far as social pressure, I will continue to appear to be a productive member of society, be on various boards, have projects, volunteer, etc. As far as our friend group goes, they don't need to know the specifics of my situation. Social pressure solved.

The point is that if you buy that product, they will order more. Not 100% of the moeny goes to the slaughter house or the farm, obviously, but if you buy it it increases demand and they will restock more.

To quote Will MacAskill's Doing Good Better!

>[page 87]
"On many issues, I find that people hold the following two views:
If many people did this thing, then change would happen.
But any individual person doesn't make a difference.
Holding that combination of views is usually a mistake when we consider expected value.
Consider ethical consumption, like switching to fair-trade coffee, or reducing how much meat you buy. Suppose someone stops buying chicken breasts, instead choosing vegetarian options, in order to reduce the amount of animal suffering on factory farms. Does that person make a difference? You might think not. If one person decides against buying chicken breast one day but the rest of the meat eaters on the planet continue to buy chicken, how could that possibly affect how many chickens are killed for human consumptions? When a supermarket decides how much chicken to buy, they don't care that one fewer breast was purchased on a given day. However, if thousands or millions of people stopped buying chicken breasts, the number of chickens raised for food would decrease-- supply would fall to meet demand. But then we're left with a paradox: individuals can't make a difference, but millions of individuals do. But the actions of millions of people are just the sum of the actions of many individual people. Moreover, an iron law of economics is that, in a well-functioning market, if demand for a product decreases, the quantity of the product that's supplied decreases. How, then, can we reconcile these thoughts?
The answer lies with expected value. If you decline to buy some chicken breast, then most of the time you'll make no difference: the supermarket will buy the same amount of chicken in the future. Sometimes, however, you will make a difference. Occasionally, the manager of the store will assess the number of chicken breasts bought by consumers and decide to decrease their intake of stock, even thought they wouldn't have done so had the number of chicken breasts bought been one higher. (Perhaps they follow a rule like: "If fewer than five thousand chicken breasts were bought this month, decrease stock intake.") And when that manager does decide to decrease their stock intake, they will decrease stock by a large amount. Perhaps your decision against purchasing chicken breast will have an effort on the supermarket only one in a thousand times, but in that one time, the store manager will decide to purchase approximately one thousand fewer chicken breasts.
This isn't just a theoretical argument. Economists have studied this issue and worked out how, on average, a consumer affects the number of animal products supplied by declining to buy that product. They estimate that, on average, if you give up one egg, total production ultimately falls by 0.91 eggs; if you give up one gallon of milk, total production falls by 0.56 gallons. Other products are somewhere in between: economists estimate that if you give up one pound of beef, beef production falls by 0.68 pounds; if you give up one pound of pork, production ultimately falls by 0.74 pounds; if you give up one pound of chicken, production ultimately falls by 0.76 pounds."

The point is that by continuing to purchase it it is keeping up demand. Where exactly each dollar you spend goes is besides the point.

There is a lot of work being done in this area at the moment.

Here's a good book to read on the subject:-

https://www.amazon.com/Doing-Good-Better-Effective-Altruism/dp/1592409660

Or a video by the same chap...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qslo4-DpzPs

And their work...

http://www.givewell.org/

It's an argument for utilitarianism ultimately, and if you believe that's the way to go, then just go with their current best pick.

https://www.againstmalaria.com/

Doing good better

If you have the right intentions and pay attention to evidence then you can make the world better in expectation. We're never entirely sure what the consequences of our actions are, but we can find things which are probably much better than doing nothing. This is a good book on the subject.

Ah yeah, here it is

There's a really good book called Doing Good Better that talks about where to put your money to have the most impact. iirc, he's behind GiveWell, which ranks charities.

Think you mean Doing Good Better by the author of the OP article. Great book.