Reasoning for elasticities
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

View only
 
 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
Start nodeEnd NodeElasticity/DifferentialInitialuncertanty (factor?)thoughtsreferences
2
EA movement size (E)mil$ Far Future (E)0.95Doubling movement size seems like it should double funding, minor reduction due to wanting to avoid weird feedback
3
EA movement size (E)mil$ Global Poverty (E)0.95Doubling movement size seems like it should double funding, minor reduction due to wanting to avoid weird feedback
4
EA movement size (E)mil$ Animal Outreach (E)0.95Doubling movement size seems like it should double funding, minor reduction due to wanting to avoid weird feedback
5
EA movement size (E)mil$ Cause Prioritization (E)0.95Doubling movement size seems like it should double funding, minor reduction due to wanting to avoid weird feedback
6
EA movement size (E)mil$ Outreach (E)0.95Doubling movement size seems like it should double funding, minor reduction due to wanting to avoid weird feedback
7
EA movement size (E)
EA aligned people in position of power (E)
0.95
8
EA movement size (E)
Value of all work done on Cause X (E)
0.5Unclear what proportion of work on cause X is done by EA community, I went with half EA half gov
9
mil$ Far Future (E)mil$ Far Future outreach (E)1
10
mil$ Far Future (E)mil$ GCR Research (E)1
11
mil$ Far Future (E)mil$ GCR Policy/Strategy (E)1
12
mil$ Global Poverty (E)mil$ AMF (D)155000There seems to be a significant change od this being an overestimate, if most of the doners following givewells recomendations are not EAsUsing Givewells non-Good ventures money moved as estimate for total EA funding, which was $15.5 million out of a total of $40 million.http://blog.givewell.org/2016/05/13/givewells-money-moved-web-traffic-2015/ http://www.givewell.org/charities/against-malaria-foundation#Available_and_expected_funds (Footnote 97)
13
mil$ Global Poverty (E)mil$ Deworming (D)36500There seems to be a significant change od this being an overestimate, if most of the doners following givewells recomendations are not EAsUsing Givewells non-Good ventures money moved as estimate for total EA funding, which was $3.65 million out of a total of $40 million.
http://blog.givewell.org/2016/05/13/givewells-money-moved-web-traffic-2015/
14
mil$ Global Poverty (E)mill$ Givedirectly (D)193600There seems to be a significant change od this being an overestimate, if most of the doners following givewells recomendations are not EAsUsing Givewells non-Good ventures money moved as estimate for total EA funding, which was $19.36 million out of a total of $40 million.
http://blog.givewell.org/2016/05/13/givewells-money-moved-web-traffic-2015/
15
mil$ Animal Outreach (E)
mil$ Animal Product alternatives (E)
1http://www.mercyforanimals.org/financials
16
mil$ Animal Outreach (E)
mil$ Goverment/Corporate Animal welfare reforms (E)
1https://animalcharityevaluators.org/about/impact/giving-metrics/ http://www.mercyforanimals.org/what-we-do
17
mil$ Animal Outreach (E)mil$ Vegan outreach (D)8398I am using ACEs money moved. In 2016 $2.47 out of $2.75 million they influenced went to MFA/THL/AE and assuming MFA is typical 34% of MFAs budget is spent on educationhttps://animalcharityevaluators.org/about/impact/giving-metrics/ http://www.mercyforanimals.org/what-we-do
18
mil$ Far Future outreach (E)
Concern about GCRs in academia (% of revelent fields who think a GCR top 6 global problem, because it is a GCR) (E)
0.07Very uncertain
Just took Max/Ben's divded by 10 to take into account it is only for one year
https://docs.google.com/a/centreforeffectivealtruism.org/spreadsheets/d/1LicU_M9fqwFqBW74o2U3UGzxK-Q6z67mVKBh2tOu6ik/edit?usp=sharing
19
mil$ Far Future outreach (E)
Concern about GCRs in public/industry/government (% of MPs who think a 'GCR' top 6 global problem) (E)
0.025Very uncertainNot even really sure how to estimate, just going from Max's AI work divded by 10 to take into account it is only for one yearhttps://docs.google.com/a/centreforeffectivealtruism.org/spreadsheets/d/1LicU_M9fqwFqBW74o2U3UGzxK-Q6z67mVKBh2tOu6ik/edit?usp=sharing
20
mil$ GCR Research (E)
Concern about GCRs in academia (% of revelent fields who think a GCR top 6 global problem, because it is a GCR) (E)
0.08Very uncertain
Just took Max/Ben's divded by 10 to take into account it is only for one year
https://docs.google.com/a/centreforeffectivealtruism.org/spreadsheets/d/1LicU_M9fqwFqBW74o2U3UGzxK-Q6z67mVKBh2tOu6ik/edit?usp=sharing
21
mil$ GCR Research (E)
Theoretical X-Risk (2017-2500) (E)
-0.03very uncertainOne reseracher year reduces x-risk by 0.0005%. Currently 3 million spent a year, assume 50K a year per researcher so 60 researchers, so 0.003% reducetion a year currently, assume marginal impact the same.https://docs.google.com/a/centreforeffectivealtruism.org/spreadsheets/d/1LicU_M9fqwFqBW74o2U3UGzxK-Q6z67mVKBh2tOu6ik/edit?usp=sharing
22
mil$ GCR Research (E)
Theoretical GCR (Expected number 2017-2500) (E)
-0.03Very uncertainSame as above, would expect possibly easier to influence so larger effect, but less of a focus so smaller, assume balance outhttps://docs.google.com/a/centreforeffectivealtruism.org/spreadsheets/d/1LicU_M9fqwFqBW74o2U3UGzxK-Q6z67mVKBh2tOu6ik/edit?usp=sharing
23
mil$ GCR Policy/Strategy (E)
Concern about GCRs in public/industry/government (% of MPs who think a 'GCR' top 6 global problem) (E)
0.07very uncertain
Max/Ben's divded by 10 to take into account it is only for one year
https://docs.google.com/a/centreforeffectivealtruism.org/spreadsheets/d/1LicU_M9fqwFqBW74o2U3UGzxK-Q6z67mVKBh2tOu6ik/edit?usp=sharing
24
mil$ Cause Prioritization (E)
Value of working on current known best cause (E)
0.95Would to interesting to see some more in depth analysis of this, based on prior distribtuions of causes etc.
25
mil$ Outreach (E)
EA Movement size (dedicated ivy league grads equivilents) (E)
0.1v uncertainI am not sure how funding constrained outreach is, small effect as this is outreach in just one year.
26
mil$ AMF (D)Population levels (2050) (E)0.0000004388852315somewhat uncertainSeems like AMF somewhat boosts population levels in the short term (in areas with bad contraception access) with unclear long term effects.Settled on rough estimate of population increasing by 0.3 for each life saved. Givewell says AMF saves on life per $7500. Assuming population of 9.8 Billion*(1 - x-risk) in 2050http://blog.givewell.org/2014/04/17/david-roodmans-draft-writeup-on-the-mortality-fertility-connection/ http://www.givewell.org/giving101/Your-dollar-goes-further-overseas http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2017/06/world-population-projected-to-reach-9-8-billion-in-2050-and-11-2-billion-in-2100-says-un/
27
mil$ AMF (D)
Cumulative change in QALYs (2050) (D)
19117.64706not really clear what givewell meansgivewell says around $3400 per (one child equivlent which I think is) *Value in QALYS of averting child death* (65)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TZ-9eP0et9eYPRj2il4l1UCGS3xmqWarucW5UKQCBIU/edit#gid=1034883018
28
mil$ AMF (D)Reported wellbeing (E)0.000075AMF has given out 28 billion nets. (1) Assuming one death averted per 7500 dollar, 1 billion AMF dollars avert roughly 133 child deaths. Looking at the distributions we check how much it lowers child mortality in those countries. For the population of >180 million (only taking into account 24.5 billion nets, the largest distrubutions, using those as approximation) it reduces child mortality by 0.1 per 1000 live births. (E.g. Uganda+ Papua New Guinea have child population of 8.4 million children, a child mortality rate of 55/57 children per 1000 live births, one half of the 133 children so 67 saved get saved there.) Looking at how much reduced child mortality impacts life satisfaction according to the Cantril Ladder used by Gallup. Judging from graph (2). Reducing child mortality by 10 children per 1000 (at 40-60-80 per 1000) roughly increases life satisfaction by 0.3 points, so by 0.1. reduced child mortality per 1000 increases life satisfaction by 0.003. The countries AMF distributes in are roughly 2.5% of the world population. So 0.003 * 2.5% = 0.00075 increase in life satisfaction.
(1) https://www.againstmalaria.com/distribution_countries.aspx
29
mil$ Deworming (D)Average income (E)0.0001672800268Depends heavily on effectiveness of deworming, at least 2 orders of magnitudeGivewell says each treatment costs $0.49, and also says it puts a 1-2% chance on the effects being as strong those in the worms at work paper, which had treated populations increasing earnings by 21-29%. I have followed a similar path to givewell and just multiplied these together.Wikipedia gives 915 Million people living in countries with average income of less than $4000 PPP a year, with an average income of $2344http://www.givewell.org/charities/schistosomiasis-control-initiative https://www.cgdev.org/doc/events/KLPS-Labor_2011-05-16-Circulate.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMF_ranked_countries_by_GDP
30
mil$ Deworming (D)
Reported wellbeing which percentage struggling (2050) (E)
0very uncertainI cannot find any clear data on this, I will rely on the effects on income to mediate this entirely
31
mil$ Deworming (D)
Cumulative change in QALYs (2050) (D)
20000not sureGivewell says between $25 and 70 per DALY, we are going to take this literally and go with $50http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/deworming/cost-effectiveness
32
mil$ Givedirectly (D)Average income (E)0.00004429400026915 million people living on less than $4000 per year PPP, assume Givedirectly gets 95% of the money to them. Average income in this group is $2344
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMF_ranked_countries_by_GDP
33
mil$ Animal Product alternatives (E)
Eggs consumption kg per capita (E)
-0.0000003333333333Eggs seem very hard to culture as they are pretty complicated (as far as I am aware noone is even trying) However in some limited cases things like cultured egg whites already seem very close to production. I could not find figures of usage of egg whites vs normal egg, so have just guestieated a 0.01% figure here. Currently 1% chance of becoming cheaper by 2050, assume marginal spending as vauable as average, divide by 30 for30 year timeframe vs only considering funding in 2017. asumme EA makes up 10% of funding.https://animalcharityevaluators.org/research/dietary-impacts/cost-competitive-timeline/
34
mil$ Animal Product alternatives (E)
Poultry consumption kg per capita (E)
-0.00001666666667SignificantIt seems unlikley we will have anything other than cultured processed chicken anytime soon. In the US this seems to make up ~40% of total chicken consumption, but I would expect this to be lower in the rest of the world, and the US dose not particuarly dominate poultry consumption. I have ended up going with 5% of consmuption being replaceable. 0.1% of culture meat becoming cheaper, again assume amrginal spending same as average and divide by 30 yearshttps://animalcharityevaluators.org/research/dietary-impacts/cost-competitive-timeline/ http://download.poultryandmeatprocessing.com/v02/SciPoultryAndMeatProcessing%20-%20Barbut%20-%2002%20Global%20Perspective%20-%20v02.pdf
35
mil$ Animal Product alternatives (E)
Beef consumption Kg per capita (E)
-0.0001111111111SignificantGround beef seems like it could be replaced in teh short term, although steaks etc. seem out of reach. currently ground eef seems to make up 40% of the American beef market, and parantly is hte main form of beef on the global market, so I estiamte it as a thid of all consumption. 0.1% of culture meat becoming cheaper, again assume amrginal spending same as average and divide by 30 yearshttps://animalcharityevaluators.org/research/dietary-impacts/cost-competitive-timeline/ http://www.beefmagazine.com/beef-quality/has-us-become-ground-beef-nation http://www.waaytv.com/story/35785599/global-beef-market-driven-by-rise-in-the-disposable-income-of-the-consumers-urbanization
36
mil$ Animal Product alternatives (E)
Pork consumption kg per capita (E)
0SignificantBasically all pork products are too complicated to seem to have any significant chance of being cultured before 2050.v
37
mil$ Goverment/Corporate Animal welfare reforms (E)
Chicken welfare 0-10 (2050) (E)0.0053625unclear if future reforms will have the same impact,this is undercounting the current effects however so real number could be bigger or smallerchanging from battery to non-battery hens aparantly cuts suffering by half [1] say by increasing life quality from 3/10 to 4/10 (33%). ACE say in 2016 MFA spent 1.1 Million on corporate outreach and his resulted in 164 Millions battery hens changing to non-cage hens. They also managed to slightly improve welfare for an expected 690 Million broiler chicken, which we say is an increase of 7.7%. There are approx 6 billion layer hens globally, and about 20 billion in total [3], giving 14 billion broilres alive at any given time.[1] http://library.wur.nl/ojs/index.php/njas/article/viewFile/1157/741 [2] https://www.getguesstimate.com/models/7294?token=aYbYkohTp6snq7jhOvTbK9CsKZ7top-LQ204d35AmrlyDKkm9DGGvmXTWlhVgfaDUERNcuRQn67-n6mXQVMZVQ [3] https://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/07/global-livestock-counts
38
mil$ Goverment/Corporate Animal welfare reforms (E)
Cattle welfare 0-10 (2050) (E)0.00005714622642QoL impacts very uncertain, also unclear if MFA will have this kind of victory in future1.59 billion cattle [1] There don't seem to have been any successes for this in recent years, MFAs website says they have prevneted tail clipping etc. of 2.1 millon dairy cows annualy, which we will take to be an improvement in welfare of 0.1%, and 465,000 calves no longer raised in veal crates anualy for 33% inprovement. I will give a 1/20 chance of future reforms of this nature, and assume that they will have 5 counterfactual years of impact.[2][1] http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QA [2] http://www.mercyforanimals.org/corporate-outreach
39
mil$ Goverment/Corporate Animal welfare reforms (E)
Pig welfare 0-10 (2050) (E)0.0002837579618QoL impacts very uncertain, also unclear if MFA will have this kind of victory in future785 million pigs [1] There don't seem to have been any successes for this in recent years, MFAs website says they have banned gestation crates for effectlvey 2.7 million pigs annually [2] Asumming this is a 33% QoL improvement and a 1/20 chance of a similar success and this having 5 years of counterfactual impact.[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/263963/number-of-pigs-worldwide-since-1990/
40
mil$ Vegan outreach (D)
Eggs consumption kg per capita (E)
0MFAs impact extremely uncertain, no solid figuresUsing ACE's estiamt of 2.4 animals spared per dollar of outreach [1], and assuming it follows the breakdown of the US average meat conumsption of 26/28.88 chickens for meat, 1.43/28.88 chickens for eggs, 0.91/28.88 turkeys, 0.4/28.88 pigs and 0.14/28.88 cows.(cont.) [1] https://www.getguesstimate.com/models/7294?token=aYbYkohTp6snq7jhOvTbK9CsKZ7top-LQ204d35AmrlyDKkm9DGGvmXTWlhVgfaDUERNcuRQn67-n6mXQVMZVQ [2] http://www.humanesociety.org/news/resources/research/stats_slaughter_totals.html?referrer=https://www.google.co.uk/
41
mil$ Vegan outreach (D)
Poultry consumption kg per capita (E)
-0.003286344516MFAs impact extremely uncertain, no solid figuresbroiler yields 2.2kg live weight [3], 70% of that goes to Carcass weight [4] total global sonumption of chicken 13.5 kg per capita [5], for 101 billion kg[3] http://www.poultryhub.org/production/industry-structure-and-organisations/chicken-meat/ [4] https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400525/data/retn/usda_cookingyields_meatpoultry.pdf [5] https://data.oecd.org/agroutput/meat-consumption.htm
42
mil$ Vegan outreach (D)
Beef consumption Kg per capita (E)
-0.01211911357MFAs impact extremely uncertain, no solid figuresbeef cow yeilds something like 500*50% =250kg meat [6] 6.4 kg CW = 3.2kg beef per capita [5] so 24 billion kg[6] https://www.quora.com/How-much-meat-is-on-the-average-cow-and-how-much-does-it-weigh-in-total-before-slaughter
43
mil$ Vegan outreach (D)
Pork consumption kg per capita (E)
-0.002908028021MFAs impact extremely uncertain, no solid figuresAverage pig yeild 82kg CW, resulting in 65kg meat [7] global CW pork per capita 12.5kg [5] so 9.91kg per capita so 74.3 billion kg in total[7] https://www.oda.state.ok.us/food/fs-hogweight.pdf
44
Concern about GCRs in academia (% of revelent fields who think a GCR top 6 global problem, because it is a GCR) (E)
$ GCR Research (EA excluding good Ventures 2017) (E)
0.3bigguess, logic being that accademic finding roughly poportional to academic interest, but that currently lots of funding is just coming from outside (i.e. from EA)
45
Concern about GCRs in academia (% of revelent fields who think a GCR top 6 global problem, because it is a GCR) (E)
Concern about GCRs in public/industry/government (% of MPs who think a 'GCR' top 6 global problem) (E)
0.8bigjust took Max/Bens estimatehttps://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LicU_M9fqwFqBW74o2U3UGzxK-Q6z67mVKBh2tOu6ik/edit#gid=0
46
Concern about GCRs in public/industry/government (% of MPs who think a 'GCR' top 6 global problem) (E)
$ GCR Research (EA excluding good Ventures 2017) (E)
0.3bigVery little funding currently from gov
47
Concern about GCRs in public/industry/government (% of MPs who think a 'GCR' top 6 global problem) (E)
Practical X-Risk (2017-2500) (E)
-0.05bigCurrently has 1% of MPs care, assume at full capcity gv could reduce x-risk via policy by 5%https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LicU_M9fqwFqBW74o2U3UGzxK-Q6z67mVKBh2tOu6ik/edit#gid=0
48
Concern about GCRs in public/industry/government (% of MPs who think a 'GCR' top 6 global problem) (E)
Practical GCR (Expected number 2017-2500) (E)
-0.1big Currently has 1% of MPs care, assume at full capcity gv could reduce x-risk via policy by 10%https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LicU_M9fqwFqBW74o2U3UGzxK-Q6z67mVKBh2tOu6ik/edit#gid=0
49
Value of working on cuase X (E)
Value of all work done on Cause X (E)
1https://drive.google.com/open?id=1qpzNhyulR-xcci4UNFZ_BksKkW4mTfCaVGzol_R6Bu0
50
GDP per capita PPP in poor countries (E)
Meat consumption (E)0.08Elasticity of income increase is 2/3s for food, one half for more calories and one half on nicer food. Few percent are spent on meat in the first place, one third of the food budget is being spent on nice food. Estimate: 25% of expensive food is meat. So 1% leads to 1/3% then 0.08 for general meat. According to (2) 0.12 poultry 0.06 pork 0.04 beef eggs unclear go with average.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2638067/ Figure 3.4.2 http://www.fao.org/3/a-BO100e.pdf
51
GDP per capita PPP in poor countries (E)
Better governance (E)0.8Correlation between GDP and those indexes is very good. http://www.gapminder.org/news/hdi-surprisingly-similar-to-gdpcapita/ http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf
52
GDP per capita PPP in poor countries (E)
Carbon emissions (D)13.5Increasing returns. Big differences between doubling and 1%. Increase by about 2.5% of 36 GT CO2 per year. Assuming change lasts for 15 yearshttps://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf
53
GDP per capita PPP in poor countries (E)
Reported wellbeing (D)0.5Doubling GDP PPP per capita at <4000$ seems to roughly lead to an increase of 0.5 points on the Cantril Scale.https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-vs-happiness
54
GDP per capita PPP in poor countries (E)
Population levels (E)-0.015Judging from wikipedia graph of total fertility rate. "Least developed countries" decent proxy for the bottom billion/<4000$GDP per capita. Lowering fertility rate thereby only increases roughly by 75%. So instead of rising from 12.2 to 18.6 percent (low estimate bec only 850million, say reality is 14 to 20) it only rises to 18.5 instead of 20. So population levels lower by 1.5 percent.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/trends/WPP2010/WPP2010_Volume-I_Comprehensive-Tables.pdf (page 24 tables)
55
GDP per capita PPP in poor countries (E)
QALYSs (D)7800000000Looking at life expectancy and poorest countries (GDP). Doubling for the <4000 dollar ones increases life expectancy roughly by 6.5 years. This is only relevant for Bottom billion.(This is ignoring people who now don't get to exist because of lowered fertility rate.) This is ignoring YLDs and only looks at YLLs. Most DALYs in least developing countries lost to YLLs, not YDLs. Checked with health data tool. Increase number by 20% to accommodate for YLDs. Bottom billion * 6.5 * 1.2 = 7,8 billion QALYs.http://www.statisticalconsultants.co.nz/blog/life-expectancy-at-birth-versus-gdp-per-capita-ppp.html http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPP2004/WPP2004_Vol3_Final/Chapter2.pdf https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare/
56
Beef/pork consumption per capita kg 2017-2050 per year (E)
Cattle/pig population 2017-2050 per year (E)
1LowAmount of lifetime to slaughter irrelevant since we care about suffering produced. So straight 1:1 relationship.
57
Chicken/eggs consumption kg per capita (E)
Poultry population (E)0,9/0,150 billion chicken raised per year (according to wikipedia). 112 billion kg of chicken per year in the world. (1) eggs weighs roughly 50g. 180 eggs per person per year half a chicken per person assuming the lay daily or bidaily 1 chicken per person. so 7,5-3,75 billion chicken. 112 billion kg chicken assuming 2 kg for the average chicken (rough estimate) 60 billion chicken. sanity check: 50 billion chicken per annum. proportion should be roughly correct however. 0,9 for meat consumption 0,1 for eggs.
58
Poultry/egg consumption (E)Chicken welfare 0-10 (2050) (E)"+-0.315"Egg chickens 2/10 QoL, broiler 3.5/10 say. 6 billion egg vs 14 billion broiler. calculate deraviates of (2*6x+3.5*14y)/(6x+14y) at x=y=1http://reducing-suffering.org/how-much-direct-suffering-is-caused-by-various-animal-foods/ http://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/3588/global-poultry-trends-developing-countries-main-drivers-in-chicken-consumption/ http://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/3588/global-poultry-trends-developing-countries-main-drivers-in-chicken-consumption/
59
Theoretical X-Risk and GCR (E)Practical X-Risk and GCR (E)0.6/0.8Think about probability safety tools are used. Mostly a concern with AI.
60
Intentional GCRGhost node by now. We originally wanted to consider Intentional GCRs (e.g. by terrorism or malicious state action) and its effects separately.
61
EA aligned people in position of power (E)
Government animal reforms (E)
0.01Let's assume 2 out of 600 mps are EA animal people. People who put through appropriate reforms are 50 (modelled on German Green party). 1% increase of EA animal MPs results in 0.04% more animal MPs. Let's assume 1% more animal MPs lead to 0.25% more animal reforms (estimate thinking about the influence of German Greens vs lack of animal interested parties in other countries).
62
EA people in power in government (E)
Concern about GCRs in government (E)
0.1Let's assume there are EA GCR concerned people in parliament, say 2 out of 600. Assume people concerned about GCRs are 10 in 600. (In a way that everyone saying nuclear war is one of the priorities doesn't count fully, but more a general GCR awareness.) So 0.02 EA GCR people more leads to 0.1% more Concern.
63
EA people in power in government (E)
$ development spending (E)0,033.Factor of 3 80% confidence interval.EA GP people in government, say 2 out of 600. Concern about GP focus say 20 in 600. (Estimate!) (Maybe 30 total of whom some have unreasonable beliefs). So 0.02 people more leads to 0.1%. Having 1% more GP MPs effects Development spending (Stark difference here between doubling and 1%, diminishing returns quickly.) 0,7% of GDP? is target, limit of improvement there. Say going from 20 to 30 effective GP concerned people boosts development spending from 0,6 to 0,7 percent. So elasticity is 0,33%. Total elasticity is 0,033.
64
EA aligned people in position of power (E)
Reported wellbeing (E)0We shouldn't assume a direct effect, just the stuff that filters through from other things.
65
Foreign aid (E)QALYs (D)3161592.506Uncertain.Foreign aid budget 135 billion dollars 2014. 1% increase of foreign aid leads to 0.1% increase in health aid (roughly). Health aid effective at reducing child mortality/increasing life expectancy. Using lowered child mortality as proxy for QALYs. 1% increase in health aid is 0.135 billion. According to paper, 1 billion leads to 360k fewer child deaths, so 1% of foreign aid leads to 48 600 fewer child deaths. We assume 65 QALYs per saved child. This is supposed to capture other effects as well. (Reminder: Lost QALYs are mostly due to YLLs, not YLDs.) This gives $427 per QALYhttps://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/apr/08/foreign-aid-spending-2014-least-developed-countries https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4777302/
66
Foreign aid (E)
GDP least developed countries (E)
0VeryUnclear whether there is a positive or negative relationship. Maybe slightly positive. Lots of countries foreign aid is given too aren't even that poor. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/10/does-foreign-aid-boost-growth/
67
Foreign Aid (E)Better governance (E)0Very uncertain.There's a strong dispute in the field whether it has a positive or negative influence and how big it is.
68
Better governance in developing countries (E)
GDP per capita PPP (<4000$) (E)
0.01Very uncertain.Very difficult to find numbers. Positive relationship seems likely. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/good-governance-and-economic-performance/
69
Better governance in developing countries (E)
Reported wellbeing (E)0.01Very uncertain.Very difficult to find numbers. Positive relationship seems likely.
70
Better governance in developing countries (E)
Population level (E)-0.01Very uncertain.Very difficult to find numbers. Negative relationship seems likely.
71
Climate Change (D)
Population levels (2050), 10billion. (E)
-0.0001645819618[1] gives climate change casuing 700,000 deaths a year by 2030, assume average of 1 million between 2017 and 2050 gives 33,300,000 deaths by 2050. so to get as fraction of population (divide by 9.8 billion times 1 - x-risk (3*10^7)/(9.8*(1-0.07)*10^9)*(100/2200)(1) http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/ (2) http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)01156-3/abstract
72
CO2 emissions (D)Practical X-Risk (E)0.005844155844Alex estimte: currently 3% chance of 6 degrees warming, for 2200 gigatonnes emmited, assumethis is linear, and that 6 degrees of warming has 30% chance of being x-risk.So 0.9% chance of climate x-risk vs 7% general chance (1) http://thebulletin.org/how-likely-existential-catastrophe9866http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdfhttp://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-experts-say-temperatures-could-rise-by-6c-by-2100-with-cataclysmic-results-10193506.html
73
CO2 emisisons (D)Practical GCRs by 2050 (E)0.0038961038966 degrees is definitly a GCR, so by above 3% chance of climate GCR, vs general expected number of 0.35. Assume risk of 6 degrees is linear with emmisions.
74
CO2 emissions (D)Reported wellbeing (D)-0.0003333333333It takes 1500 GT CO2 to go from 2 to 3 degrees of global warming. We assume that this extra degree would decrease life satisfaction by -0.5.
75
CO2 emissions (D)QALYs (D)-1080000very uncertain, mean estimate of models interpreted roughly[1] gives climate change casuing 700,000 deaths a year by 2030, assume average of 1 million between 2017 and 2050 gives 33,300,000 deaths by 2050. [2] says 90%+ of deaths will be children, so assume 60 QALYs per death. Assume 1% increase in c02 (from 2200) gives 1% increase in deaths. Times by 1.2 to get disability related QALYs as well.[1] http://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/EXECUTIVE-AND-TECHNICAL-SUMMARY.pdf [2] http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/134014/1/9789241507691_eng.pdf
76
Farmed animals (E)CO2 emissions (D)~0,0814,5% of all co2 emissions are from lifestock, of that 0,4 from beef, 0,2 from cattle milk, 0,09 from swine, chicken meat and eggs 0,08.http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/
77
Practical GCR (E)Farmed animal population (E)0already counted by effect on human population
78
Practical GCR (E)Reported wellbeing (D)-0.007
We assume a GCR happening (killing 10% of population) would globally decrease wellbeing as measured by the Cantril Scale by 2 (our guess). 0.0035*(-1.5). There's a 35% base risk of GCR.
[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/153869/one-suffering-worldwide.aspx [2] https://health2016.globalchange.gov/mental-health-and-well-being
79
Practical GCR (E)
Population levels (2050), 10billion. (E)
-0.035GCRs 35% by 2050. So 0.35 increase leads to 10% of population kill (rough definition for GCR).
80
Practical GCR (E)Qalys (D)-79747500
81
Practical X-Risk (E)Farmed animal population (E)0already counted by effect on human population
82
Practical X-Risk (E)
Population levels (2050), 10billion. (E)
-0.07Base risk of x-risk 7%
83
Practical X-Risk (E)QALYs (D)-1594950007% base risk of X-Risk by 2050. 1% increase of that is 0.07%. 9.8*(1-x-risk) billion people times 25 years. 250 billion qalys. times 0.0007
84
Population level (E)Farmed animals population (E)0.5580% confidence interval: 0,1-0,7Proportional to already existing population growth in developing/developed countries to their meat consumption.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/ap106e/ap106e.pdf (1, page 31)
85
Population level (E)
Different farmed animals pop. Pork, Poultry, Cattle (E)
Pork 0,3 Beef 0,2 Poultry 0,7Figure 3.4.2 extrapolating to 2050. Beef pork poultry 6 12 12 kg per capita globally. 60% increase in poultry. 25% pork rest cattle.http://www.fao.org/3/a-BO100e.pdf
86
Population level (E)CO2 emissions (D)0,480% confidence intervall: 0,1-0,7Estimate related to https://www.cgdev.org/media/developing-countries-are-responsible-63-percent-current-carbon-emissions
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Loading...
Main menu