tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post8964040418103879430..comments2023-08-16T12:44:15.891-05:00Comments on Primate Freedom: The Alliance for AnimalsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-59344431738980172602017-08-10T07:52:36.874-05:002017-08-10T07:52:36.874-05:00http://www.animals24-7.org/2017/08/09/new-shark-ch...http://www.animals24-7.org/2017/08/09/new-shark-charitycops-site-exposes-animal-charity-evaluators/<br />Rick Boglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03196770474248059784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8158319986602952349.post-5326815309675295902016-01-18T20:20:20.092-06:002016-01-18T20:20:20.092-06:00Thanks for posting this Rick! It helped me underst...Thanks for posting this Rick! It helped me understand your perspective much better.<br /><br />First, some minor points: I <a href="http://www.veganoutreach.org/articles/saveanimals.html" rel="nofollow">don't think</a> your thought experiment is correct, and if you read <a href="http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/research/interventions/leafleting/leafleting-outreach-study-fall-2013/leafleting-outreach-study-analysis-fall-2013/#conclusions" rel="nofollow">ACE's analysis</a> of that study you find that they make essentially the same point you do, e.g. "We did not find support for claims that distributing leaflets from Vegan Outreach (or similar leaflets published by other groups) causes the overall population who receives the leaflets to reduce their meat consumption" I agree with you though that when they make point estimates like the ones you cite above it can mislead people into thinking that those numbers have very small margins of error.<br /><br />Corporate outreach is a <a href="http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/research/interventions/corporate-outreach/corporate-outreach-intervention-evaluation/" rel="nofollow">recommended intervention</a> of ACE's which is an example of an intervention that is pretty easy to measure: you can track how much effort you put into the boycott or whatever and then if the company changes you can divide how many animals were saved by how much work you put in to get cost-effectiveness. (THL has at least one full-time person working on corporate outreach.) Groups like MFA and THL have had successes which are pretty astonishing, often on the order of $.20 per animal.<br /><br />Those seem like minor things though; I think your big point is that we should focus more on systemic change instead of smaller changes. I couldn't agree more and, while I don't claim to speak for the EA community I can tell you that most people I know who call themselves "effective altruists" would also agree.<br /><br />The major EA organization that's entirely focused on systemic change is direct action everywhere (DXE) and, ironically enough given your post, the reason ACE hasn't reviewed them yet because of conflict of interest concerns (DXE staff have donated to ACE).<br /><br />One thing that ACE has done which I think you will appreciate though is review past social movements to try to figure out what works; I highly recommend <a href="http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/research/foundational-research/social-movements-project/" rel="nofollow">their reviews</a>.<br /><br />Overall, the point of Effective Altruism is just to use evidence and reason to improve the world. Of course nonprofits overstate their own impact, and you can and should call out groups like THL for doing that. But I don't think it's fair to say that Effective Altruism as movement, or individuals who describe themselves as part of that movement, are "drinking Kool-Aid".Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00235189388350960670noreply@blogger.com