CB🔸
Bio
Participation3
I'm living in France. Learned about EA in 2018, found that great, digged a lot into the topic. The idea of "what in the world improves well-being or causes suffering the most, and what can we do" really influenced me a whole lot - especially when mixed with meditation that allowed me to be more active in my life.
One of the most reliable thing I have found so far is helping animal charities : farmed animals are much more numerous than humans (and have much worse living conditions), and there absolutely is evidence that animal charities are getting some improvements (especially from The Humane League). I tried to donate a lot there.
Long-termism could also be important, but I think that we'll hit energy limits before getting to an extinction event - I wrote an EA forum post for that here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/wXzc75txE5hbHqYug/the-great-energy-descent-short-version-an-important-thing-ea
How I can help others
I just have an interest in whatever topic sounds really important, so I have a LOT of data on a lot of topics. These include energy, the environment, resource depletion, simple ways to understand the economy, limits to growth, why we fail to solve the sustainability issue, and how we got to that very weird specific point in history.
I also have a lot of stuff on Buddhism and meditation and on "what makes us happy" (check the Waking Up app!)
Posts 5
Comments275
For the typical EA, this would likely imply donating more to animal welfare, which is currently heavily underfunded under the typical EA's value system.Opportunities Open Phil is exiting from, including invertebrates, digital minds, and wild animals, may be especially impactful.
I strongly agree: the comparative underfunding of these areas always felt off to me, given their very large numbers of individuals and low-hanging fruits.
However, it feels like more and more people are recognizing the need for more funding for animal welfare, given the results of the recent debate.
Another comment : regarding the value of longtermist intervention, while I understand numbers can be very high, my main uncertainty is that I'm not even sure a lot of common interventions have a positive impact.
For instance, is working against X-risks good when avoiding an S-risks would allow factory farming to continue? The answer will depend on many questions (will factory farming continue in the future, what is the impact of humanity on wild animals, what will happen regarding artificial sentience, etc.), none of which have a clear answer.
Reducing S-risks seems good, though.
Very interesting and well formulated! It highlights several hidden assumptions that can significantly reduce your ability to have an impact.
Indeed, from what I've seen, the (natural) tendency of giving very low moral value to other animals (eg less than 1000 that of a human) often stems from gut feeling, with added justifications afterwards.
I was mentioned in a newspaper article this summer regarding this exact topic (with a typo in my name, oops!). Here is the translation:
CB is convinced of the potential of this. Just a few years ago, his job as an IT engineer earned him an annual salary of 32,000 euros. After two years, he realizes that he can give a lot of this money away, without sacrificing his happiness or quality of life. "Of course, you have to be able to secure a minimum threshold of material conditions," anticipates the 29-year-old, who made the pledge in 2019. But generally, people increase their standard of living after their studies, or after a raise: bigger houses or cars, more spending on certain items... But we get used to these expenses very quickly, and research shows that they don't bring significant additional happiness."
The psychology of happiness is quite clear on this point: the accumulation of material possessions does not make us much happier. Once the peak of satisfaction has passed, our level of happiness returns to its initial, pre-purchase level - a phenomenon known as hedonic adaptation (or "hedonic treadmill", to mean that our level of happiness tends to return to the same reference point). CB quickly gave up this headlong rush. The Lyonnais doesn't own a car, and is satisfied with the basic, such as the Interrail Pass and youth hostels for his vacations. From the very first year of his involvement, he set himself the goal of donating anything above the minimum wage. Today, he donates 30 to 40% of his income to organizations carefully selected for their effectiveness - although he admits he would probably go back to a lower percentage if he had children.
For these donors, the satisfaction that comes with acting altruistically far outweighs any sense of sacrifice. CB has long defined himself as a passive person, skeptical about making a difference in the world. "I don't have the network or the resources to influence laws and change public policy, even though it's essential to act in favor of the climate, for example." His discovery of effective altruism changed all that. "I discovered the existence of organizations specializing in the rigorous evaluation of associations, which define which interventions work well and which don't. And that made a huge difference to me. That reassured me enormously. If there are experts, I can support them with a donation. It's within my reach, and it can have a gigantic impact. It's kind of a division of labor."
Full article: https://www.ladn.eu/nouveaux-usages/donner-10-de-ses-revenus-pour-ameliorer-le-monde-cest-de-la-division-du-travail/
Personally, I've added the diamond in my LinkedIn, Forum and local EA slack profile.
People on LinkedIn can check my description if they are curious about it.
Haven't noticed any downside yet (although it would be hard to know).
It's just that I feel like the culture of not showing our donations is not a good thing. It leads us to think nobody else donates, so we donate much less than we would have done otherwise. So it's worth signaling that yes, people are donating.
I think work on animals is comparatively neglected, due to the high numbers of individuals of bad conditions. More specifically, the smaller the animals, the more numerous and neglected they tend to be, which leads to underfunding.