Reading the WIRED article, I was also wondering: "Isn`t this exactly what GiveWell does, to also consider the side effects of the actions of their recommended charities?" Maybe the solution to your debate comes down to the 27.7%. One of the sides must have blundered here as the difference between this number and "insubstantial" is quite …
Reading the WIRED article, I was also wondering: "Isn`t this exactly what GiveWell does, to also consider the side effects of the actions of their recommended charities?" Maybe the solution to your debate comes down to the 27.7%. One of the sides must have blundered here as the difference between this number and "insubstantial" is quite considerable.
Either way, I DO find it great that also their critics get a voice on the GiveWell website and we should take criticism seriously even if we believe it is unsubstantiated.
Reading the WIRED article, I was also wondering: "Isn`t this exactly what GiveWell does, to also consider the side effects of the actions of their recommended charities?" Maybe the solution to your debate comes down to the 27.7%. One of the sides must have blundered here as the difference between this number and "insubstantial" is quite considerable.
Either way, I DO find it great that also their critics get a voice on the GiveWell website and we should take criticism seriously even if we believe it is unsubstantiated.