🗑️ 🧵 Save a life for 1600$ ?
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 01:28:35 UTC No. 16622114
Do you think this charity is legitimate? It seems like they are but I'd like your opinion before I donate a few thousand more dollars to them. https://taimaka.org/
They say they can save a human life for about 1600$ using the same formula as givewell. What do you think? Other effective altruist charities can't save a life for less than 3500$ and usually more like 5000 $
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 02:12:33 UTC No. 16622139
>>16622114
>effective altruism
If they’re so effective, why can’t they think literally 1 step into the future?
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 02:25:42 UTC No. 16622144
>>16622114
this is a joke. just like >>16622139 said, anyone who enables these people to continue having five or six children is the problem
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 02:29:33 UTC No. 16622146
>>16622114
They're effective at paying their own salaries with 95% of your donation
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 06:48:56 UTC No. 16622269
>>16622146
Proof?
>>16622139
It's still good karma either way
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 07:42:56 UTC No. 16622288
>>16622144
I think it's a spambot, there's been lot of posts like this lately advertising random charities.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 10:43:40 UTC No. 16622331
>>16622114
Proliferating niggers in Africa should be considered crime.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 12:07:16 UTC No. 16622350
>>16622269
You really think you can but karma?
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 12:09:24 UTC No. 16622351
>>16622350
I can't totally rule it out maybe
Why do elites do soft disclosure?
Because they think it's funny?
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 12:17:03 UTC No. 16622355
>>16622331
Black people can understand the laws of logic and there's no morally relevant difference between them and whites
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 12:20:43 UTC No. 16622357
>>16622355
You are not moral, you poorly understand values.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 12:22:01 UTC No. 16622359
>>16622355
So there are no nobel price winners in black population, which is more plentiful than white, because systematic racism, not because niggers are dumbfucks?
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 12:28:05 UTC No. 16622361
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet
Here's their formula for calculating 1600$ per life saved if any autist wants to take a look at it
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 12:35:33 UTC No. 16622363
Also these
https://www.charityentrepreneurship
https://www.happierlivesinstitute.o
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 12:44:51 UTC No. 16622365
Someone says it's bad to donate to taimaka because it DOES save human lives which allows more people to kill more animals
>Discussion
>Meat eating problem
>I estimate a random person globally, and in China, India and Nigeria in 2022 caused 15.5, 34.6, 5.17 and 2.31 times as much suffering to poultry birds and farmed aquatic animals as the person’s happiness. Moreover, I expect the meat eating problem in those countries to become worse in the nearterm as their real GDP per capita increases. So my results suggest extending human lives there is harmful in the nearterm.
>GiveWell has made 1.09 billion dollars of grants impacting people in the countries I mentioned, overwhelmingly via decreasing mortality and morbidity[1], according to their grants database on 7 December 2024. Ambitious Impact has incubated 8 organisations whose 1st target country was one I mentioned, and whose interventions significantly increase the nearterm consumption of farmed animals, which I considered to be any significantly decreasing human mortality. Such organisations are Charity Science Health (incubated in 2016; firstly targeted India; merged with Suvita), Suvita (2019; India), Ansh (2023; India), Clear Solutions (2023; Nigeria), HealthLearn (2023; Nigeria), Notify Health (2024; Nigeria), Oxygen Access Project (2024; Nigeria), and Taimaka (2024; Nigeria).
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 12:47:01 UTC No. 16622366
>>16622365
>The harms would be smaller for a random person helped by such GiveWell’s grants or Ambitious Impact’s organisations. I assume they have an income below that of a random person in the respective country, the supply per capita of meat excluding aquatic animals roughly increases with the logarithm of the real GDP per capita, and I guess so do the number of poultry birds, farmed aquatic animals excluding shrimp, and shrimp per capita. Yet, self-reported life satisfaction also roughly increases with the logarithm of the real GDP per capita. So I believe the harms to farmed animals per person increase roughly linearly with self-reported life satisfaction, at least across countries. As a result, it is unclear to me whether the harms to farmed animals as a fraction of the human benefits would be higher or lower for a random person than for a random person helped by such GiveWell’s grants or Ambitious Impact’s organisations.
>Nevertheless, it is unclear to me whether saving human lives in China, India or Nigeria is beneficial or harmful. Even if it is harmful to farmed animals nearterm, it can still be beneficial overall: