GiveWell

I think this analysis is a bit oversimplified. If your goal is to build houses, then local labour is clearly better. But if it's to recruit lifetime donors, then perhaps shipping out incompetent (but fabulously wealthy) Americans is the way forward.

Similarly for advocacy, our model should perhaps be that seemingly extreme proposals serve to stretch the Overton window before the middle-ground wins out.

Naively disregarding approaches that don't myopically optimise for first-order impact seems likely to have harmful reprocussions.

That said, lots of donations are deeply ineffective, and if you want to prioritize I'd suggest the excellent guides from https://www.givewell.org/ , who reach many of the same conclusions as you do, after more detailed reasoning.

>the track record of the effective altruism folks doesn’t seem all that great.

I've been donating 5-10% of my income to GiveWell[1] and their top charities like GiveDirectly[2] and the Against Malaria Foundation[3] for nearly a decade at this point and I think their track record has been fantastic. Effect altruism only gets shady when longtermists get involved and start speculating on the moral worth of lives in some distant future. If you focus on human beings alive today, effective altruists (and development economists) have done a great job identifying how to make your charitable donations go the farthest in reducing suffering.

[1] https://www.givewell.org/

[2] https://www.givedirectly.org/

[3] https://www.againstmalaria.com/

Experienced 'survivor' here: You're going to feel (and sometimes be explicitly told) that your stress is not valid, because others have it worse. Both these things can be true. Others have it worse, and the stress you're feeling is real. If you don't acknowledge the effects and act on them (in whatever way works for you), you will undergo entirely avoidable suffering.

Again, others might be suffering more, but nobody wins when you self-flagellate.

If, in addition to taking care of your health, you want to take action on suffering, there are many options. I recommend considering an expansive moral circle and checking out: https://www.givewell.org/

Not OP; just thought I'd chip in organizations like GiveWell. They're a non-profit dedicated to reviewing and researching charities to find the "best", most efficient, cost-effective ones in need of funds. Their website explains better: https://www.givewell.org/

Seems like the charities they've selected are well versed in the issues they attempted to address and have done a lot of work finding the best way to address them. After all, the employees of these charities are dedicating their lives and careers to solving a specific problem.

Note: I am not affiliated with GiveWell or their charities in any way besides having used them to donate.

GiveDirectly is a great org that’s working in data driven experimental way to identify effective ways to donate. I’ve donated to them for years.

In a similar vein is GiveWell, https://givewell.org/, who research and identify the top charities to donate to to maximize dollar impact. Their mission is to simplify giving by just telling you a very small number of orgs, removing any need for analysis or choice.

GiveDirectly was a on the GiveWell list for a long time too.

Both are great orgs.

Finally, remember to check if your employer supports donation matching if you want to maximize your impact.

I think you might be replying to a different idea than reverend_gonzo was proposing. I think he's just noting that not-obviously-useful technological advances can have unexpected applications. I don't read him as saying that not-obviously-useful technological advances are the best way to save lives in Nepal.

If you just want to save lives, donate to whichever charity GiveWell[1] says is the best charity at saving lives per dollar. Every other use of money is vulnerable to the "but you could save more lives a different way" criticism.

[1] http://www.givewell.org/