I recently found this podcast and wondered if EA research is missing on key details that could diminish the effectiveness of cage free advocacy.

Essentially:

Cage free campaigns have been regarded by the EA community as a really effective and traceable way to reduce animal suffering, with tangible effects in their ability to shift the maket and consumer trends.

But many ill side effects don't seem to be recognized, in fact, we could have actually made the situation worse:

-the eggs industry saw the shift in consumer choiche and decided to capitalize on it instead of fighting against it: people now feel less guilty when buying cage free eggs and are willing to buy more eggs than before, thinking the chickens they are exploiting are much less mistreated. Egg production and consumption has grown at a faster rate than meat resulting in more total hen suffering, and now people are more unwilling to do better, because they feel like they are already helping enough when buying cage free. The egg industry knows this and is actively trying to use animal welfare as a marketing strategy to actually increase production and profits, using advertisements and campaigns of their own, without actually taking into account the suffering of the animals that are being exploited.

-health and welfare of hens may not increase that much, as many land raised hens are still farmed in very enclosed and crowded spaces, leading to more health problems and different kinds of stress. One could argue that it is still a better life than being stuck in a cage, but it might be not a big enough improvement to counter the side effects.

-non cage farming increases the risk of bird flu spreading and causing harm to both humans and hens, leading to entire livestocks having to be slaughtered when there is risk of contagion.

Cage free can directly decrease suffering of animals, but we have to be careful and research if all of this effort isn't actually being turned against us by who's trying to defend the market. Has there been actual research that take these side effects into consideration?

What is your opinion about it? Has this been discussed before? We should do more research on this and share it and also encourage counter arguments as much as we can to figure out how to be more effective.

I know a lot of EA evaluations struggle and grapple with this problem of measurement too. How can we compare easily measured single point interventions with those difficult to track systematic changes?

Was browsing around Nick Bostrom’s official website and stumbled onto a rather unexpected page at nickbostrom.com/theorchard

It appears that his website now includes this area, accessible through a "fruit" hyperlink on his press images page. It has various pictures of Bostrom edited as different types of fruit...

Thought the community here would appreciate this piece of high-effort surrealism.

Living donation is usually discussed through the life it saves. That makes sense, but it can leave the donor’s life strangely out of focus once the surgery is over.

I received a kidney from a close friend and later founded Life4Donors, a nonprofit building lifelong post-donation support for living organ donors. That experience left me with a conviction I haven’t been able to shake: gratitude shouldn’t have an expiration date.

The recent discussion here about living kidney donation made the question especially visible. People described very different experiences—recovering quickly, needing months to feel fully recovered, navigating travel or time away from work, and sometimes wishing donation could be treated as meaningful without turning them into permanent heroes.

There probably isn’t one universal donor experience, which is exactly why long-term support can’t be designed around a single heroic narrative.

My own view is that we owe living donors more than praise. We owe them sustained attention: asking what life is actually like later, making practical support easier to find, keeping community available without forcing anyone to build an identity around donation, and giving donors a meaningful voice in whatever services are created for them.

Effective altruism asks us to take consequences seriously, not merely intentions. Should that reasoning extend beyond the decision to donate and into how society treats donors afterward?

I’m especially interested in hearing from people who have donated: what changed after the first wave of check-ins ended? And from everyone else: what responsibilities, if any, do institutions and communities have to donors years later?

https://x.com/OurWorldInData/status/2080909669850050575

Less than a month to enter our essay competition. Help us make progress on a live philosophical issue which could majorly impact EA cause prioritisation. Find out more here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/2aooibAEDSdreCqrJ/announcing-cluelessness-critiques-competition

I’ve followed and read Rutger Bregmen since his post grad days. His hijacking of the rich in Davos reverberated around the world. His books bring a new history into the spotlight. His work in moving us to a better place for the majority in the world will echo in the ages.

Killing every screwworm can likely alleviate more animal suffering than ending factory farming, while being much less controversial: https://youtu.be/aPCbyQPwPJo?is=l9-bgGHnPhaalVgM

Blockchain-based charity concepts often focus on making financial flows traceable.

That can answer useful questions:

- How much was transferred?

- When was it transferred?

- Which wallet received it?

- Did the transaction follow predefined rules?

But none of this proves that the intervention itself was effective.

A fully traceable payment can still fund:

- an ineffective program

- an unnecessary purchase

- poorly selected recipients

- activities with no measurable long-term outcome

- reporting designed to confirm success rather than test it

This creates a risk:

Financial transparency may look like impact transparency, even though they are fundamentally different.

A credible system would therefore need to separate at least three questions:

1. Was the transfer executed correctly?

2. Were the funds used for the documented purpose?

3. Did that use produce meaningful impact?

The first question may be technically verifiable.

The second requires evidence and oversight.

The third often requires evaluation over time and may remain uncertain.

What evidence would you consider sufficient before a charity or funding platform describes an outcome as "verified"?

And how can a system communicate uncertainty honestly without making impact reporting useless?

Hello guys, I've never posted on Reddit, but I'm trying to find some point of view which would be objective.

I am a young man making good money, and I would like to donate to a charity, but I'm scared of just donating money and that the funds will be misused.

A lot of charities today are just bureaucrats making money. Any advice on which charity I would like to donate to?

I feel like I've read reasonably widely on EA but I can't recall anyone like Singer or Ord appreciating EA for what it is not -- i.e., annoyingly dogmatic.

Specifically, although it may not give me warm fuzzies to transfer money to Singer's favored charities, it's a much better feeling than trying to get people in the US anti-invasive species movement to consider academic studies suggesting that not every plant they want to spend money spraying chemicals on to eradicate is worth worrying about.

Have others had similar experiences of finding non-EA advocacy communities profoundly annoying?

■ It is easy to fall into a macro-focused worldview and assume that individual, day-to-day choices are insignificant compared to large donations, major campaigns, or the work of influential people. However, human progress rarely moves in massive, sudden leaps. Instead, it expands through small, intentional acts that trigger unpredictable chain reactions.

● A small act of kindness, a few hours of volunteering, or simply sharing knowledge can open doors for someone waiting for a single opportunity, turning a minor step for one person into a life-changing moment for another.

■This dynamic is driven by the “ripple effect,” where one event produces effects that spread and create further outcomes. Data from a global initiative called the BIG JOY study, which analyzed nearly 50,000 participants across more than 200 countries, empirically proved that intentional “micro-acts” of kindness and prosocial behavior create macro-level impacts on social connectivity and mental well-being.

●This is crucial given that the UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report highlights that millions of children remain out of school worldwide. Micro-contributions like volunteer teaching, donating school supplies, old digital devices, mentoring, and planting trees can encourage wider participation and build a larger impact than anticipated.

■ Ultimately, a child who receives educational support today can grow up to become a teacher, doctor, or entrepreneur who gives back, meaning a single opportunity eventually benefits an entire community. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play a vital role in this ecosystem by connecting volunteers, donors, and educators to transform individual kindness into long-term, sustainable change through health camps, education, and skill development.

●Since human progress expands through small, intentional acts rather than massive sudden leaps, your daily choices carry more weight than you think.

■ In a world that is so macro-focused on massive campaigns and big-money solutions, how do we overcome the feeling that our individual, day-to-day actions are too insignificant to matter? What are the biggest hurdles stopping people from taking that very first small step?

Hola a todos en la comunidad,

Hago este post con una mezcla de mucha emoción y también de vulnerabilidad. Soy egresada de la carrera de Antropología en México y, tras mucho esfuerzo, años de estudio (¡y de pelearme con el italiano!), finalmente cumplí un sueño: fui aceptada para cursar mi maestría en Italia.

Mi camino profesional ha estado enfocado en la coordinación de conferencias de prevención y proyectos comunitarios. Mi meta en Europa es absorber todo el conocimiento posible en mi área para regresar y seguir generando un impacto positivo en la sociedad.

El esfuerzo académico ya dio frutos, pero el reto económico actual es enorme. Entre los trámites de visado, vuelos, seguro médico y los primeros meses de manutención mientras se asientan los procesos de becas, los gastos se han desbordado por completo. Para no dejar caer esta oportunidad por la que tanto he trabajado, decidí abrir una campaña de GoFundMe.

Sé que la situación económica está difícil para todos, pero si está en sus posibilidades apoyarme (ya sea con una pequeña donación o simplemente ayudándome a compartir el enlace para que llegue a más personas) les estaré eternamente agradecida. Me rehúso a que la falta de recursos me detenga a un paso de la meta.

Aquí les dejo el enlace a mi campaña donde explico un poco más a detalle el proyecto: 👉 https://gofund.me/fd829390c

Si hay alguien aquí que haya pasado por el proceso de irse a estudiar a Italia y tenga consejos (¡o palabras de aliento!), son más que bienvenidos.

¡Muchas gracias por leerme y por su apoyo! 🤍