There is an insane amount of money being thrown around by international organizations and agreements. Nobody with any kind of power over these agreements is asking basic EA questions like: "What are the problems we're trying to solve?" "What are the most neglected aspects of those problems?" and "What is the most cost-effective way to address those neglected areas?"

As someone coming from an EA background reading through plans for $200-700 billion in annual funding commitments that focus on unimaginative and ineffective interventions, it makes you want to tear your hair out. So much good could be done with that money.

EA focuses a lot on private philanthropy, earning-to-give (though less so post-SBF), and the usual pots of money. But why don't we have delegations who are knowledgeable in international diplomacy going to COPs and advocating for more investment in lab-grown meat, alternative proteins, or lithium recycling? It seems like there would be insane alpha in such a strategy.

An example: The Global Biodiversity Framework

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) was adopted in 2022 to halt biodiversity loss. It has 23 targets, commitments of $200 billion annually by 2030 and $700 billion by 2050, and near-universal adoption from [...]

---

Outline:

(01:12) An example: The Global Biodiversity Framework

(02:13) What Is That Money Actually Being Spent On?

(03:02) The Elephant in the Room Literally Nobody is Talking About: Beef

(04:21) The Absolutely Insane Funding Gap

(05:26) The Leverage Point Were Ignoring

(06:47) What Would EA Engagement Look Like?

---

First published:

January 20th, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Peaq4HNhn8agsZY3z/why-isn-t-ea-at-the-table-when-usd121-billion-gets-allocated

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

EA thinking is thinking on the margin. When EAs prioritise causes, they are prioritising causes given the fact that they only control their one career, or, sometimes, given that they have some influence over a community of a few thousand people, and the distribution of some millions or billions of dollars.

Some critiques of EA act as if statements about cause prioritisation are absolute rather than relative. I.e. that EAs are saying that literally everyone should be working on AI Safety, or, the flipside, that EAs are saying that no one should be working on [insert a problem which is pressing, but not among the most urgent to commit the next million dollars to].

In conversations that sound like this, I've often turned to the idea that, if EAs controlled all the resources in the world, career advisors at the hypothetical world government's version of 80,000 Hours would be advising some people to be postal workers. Given that the EA world government will have long ago filled the current areas of direct EA work, it could be the single most impactful thing a person could do with their skillset, given the comparative neglectedness of work in the [...]

---

First published:

January 16th, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/MZ5g33fXuxd6bSgJW/if-ea-ruled-the-world-career-advisors-would-tell-some-people

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

I've started a substack, so a few more people might encounter my spicy takes - I'll still mostly be here.

USAID is gone. Direct country aid to low income countries is down 25%. So now's a great time to share five ways I think development charity can be done better in 2026.

To state the obvious... none of these ideas will be the best approach all of the time, there's plenty of grey area and nuance. I start a little playful, then get a little more serious.

1. Ditch the Cars

Close your eyes and picture the first thing that comes into your head when I say “NGO”. It might be………… a shiny white Landcruiser

The view from the front window of my hut

But owning cars doesn’t usually make economic sense in low income countries. The ‘real’ market makes this clear. Business rarely buy cars, instead they use public transport or motorbikes. When companies do own cars, its more Corolla than Landcruiser as well.

Cars are often more expensive dollar-for-dollar than in richer countries, fuel cost are high and many NGOs hire drivers, all while public transport is dirt cheap. To move 100km in Uganda [...]

---

Outline:

(00:43) 1. Ditch the Cars

(02:49) 2. Fund Solutions not Projects

(07:07) 3. Fund cost effective solutions

(08:06) 4. Fund Bimodal - Test and Scale

(11:59) 5. Pay workers less

---

First published:

January 19th, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/LvE3s6kCJk4Jck2ww/5-ways-to-better-charity-work-in-2026

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

---

Images from the article:

Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

Summary

In January 2025, FarmKind ran a provocative media campaign which used controversial media messaging and materials to promote ‘offsetting’ as an option for individuals who are concerned about factory farming but are currently unwilling or unable to change their diet.

The campaign raised an estimated $16,700--$59,300 (explained in our Results section below) and generated a number of media ‘hits’ including TV and created some debate that many advocates have told us they found productive. However we made mistakes in its execution and generated unproductive controversy within the EA and animal advocacy movements.

This post aims to explain our theory of change, what happened, what we got wrong, and what we learned.

We still believe mobilizing the meat-eating majority to take action for farmed animals requires meeting them where they're at, which sometimes means provocative framing that distinguishes us from vegan advocacy -- though we understand many in the movement disagree. However, we regret specific execution failures, particularly our insufficient stakeholder consultation, which risks sparking infighting within the animal movement.

Context

FarmKind is a donation platform that aims to bring more money into the movement against factory farming. People donate through our platform directly to six highly effective farmed [...]

---

Outline:

(00:12) Summary

(01:23) Context

(02:06) The goals of our campaign

(02:51) Primary goals

(03:16) Secondary goals

(04:06) How we envisaged it working

(05:24) Launching the campaign

(07:18) Coordination with Veganuary

(07:22) Did you tell Veganuary about the campaign in advance?

(08:21) Did Veganuary object to the campaign?

(09:07) Is there bad blood between you and Veganuary?

(09:50) Does Veganuary endorse this campaign?

(10:13) What we got wrong

(10:16) 1) Underestimating the risk of movement infighting

(12:29) 2) Insufficient stakeholder consultation

(13:11) 3) Internal coordination failures

(13:52) How we responded to concerns

(17:20) Results

(20:12) FAQs

(20:15) Are you anti-vegan?

(22:35) Aren't you concerned about dissuading people from being vegan?

(26:07) Have you measured whether you're dissuading people from being vegan or supporting animal advocacy?

(29:03) Why not just do something much more nuanced?

(29:45) Why did you pitch to tabloids and right-wing outlets?

(30:50) Conclusion

---

First published:

January 23rd, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/c2buSr3oatKQJZi6F/reflections-on-farmkind-s-january-media-campaign

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

---

Images from the article:

Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

Summary

• Our new book, All the Lives You Can Change: Effective Altruism for Christians, will be published in April 28 2026
• The book introduces effective altruism–style thinking to a Christian audience, framing effectiveness, cause prioritization, and evidence-based action as expressions of loving God and loving one's neighbor (Matt. 22:37–39)
• Authored by @dominicroser, @DavidZhang and me (JD).
• You can best support this project by pre-ordering a copy or free intro here

Praise for All the Lives You Can Change

“Effective altruism asks us to extend our empathy beyond our immediate circle to include distant strangers and future generations. All the Lives You Can Change argues powerfully that this ‘radical empathy’ is at the very core of the Christian faith. Inspiring, intellectually rigorous, and deeply practical, this is an essential guide for Christians who want to ensure their compassion translates into the greatest possible impact for the world's most vulnerable people. It's a beautiful, moving book.”

— @William_MacAskill, author of What We Owe the Future and Doing Good Better

“I couldn’t put this book down. It manages to be both inspiring and practical. It blends cutting-edge research with careful theological discussion. . . . Essential reading for Christians who are [...]

---

Outline:

(00:12) Summary

(00:49) Praise for All the Lives You Can Change

(02:50) Longer Summary

(04:30) About the book

(04:55) Table of Contents (Overview)

(06:31) Why This Might Be Relevant to the (Secular) EA Community

---

First published:

January 14th, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/E7RqRc3fLNm2syzAh/announcing-all-the-lives-you-can-change

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

---

Images from the article:

Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

TL;DR

• When surveyed, the EA community and leaders think ~18-24% of resources should go towards animal advocacy. The actual figure is about 7%.
• We as the EA ecosystem are putting less resources (money and time) into animal advocacy than the movement thinks we should when surveyed.
• This disparity could be because of loss of message fidelity, it's a harder cause area to pitch donors, or the role of large funders, but I'm honestly not too sure.

My job at Senterra Funders involves making the case to EA/EA adjacent prospective donors that they can do a tonne of good by donating to animal advocacy charities. As part of this work I’ve noticed a certain level of inconsistency in the EA ecosystem: I encounter a lot more people who want the animal advocacy movement to 'win' than people working in or donating to the space.

The numbers

It turns out this intuition is backed up by survey data.

Sources (see Appendix for extra details):

• Meta Coordination Forum (MCF; 2024) / Talent Need Survey on ideal allocation of financial resources
• EA Community survey data from 2023 on jobs by cause area I obtained in private correspondence with David Moss.
• Historical EA [...]

---

Outline:

(01:07) The numbers

(02:37) Accounting for the disparity

(05:04) Appendix 1. Data Sources

---

First published:

January 13th, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/FxZdQJXs45fTFnMEe/is-ea-underfunding-animal-advocacy-according-to-our-own

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

---

Images from the article:

Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

Thank you

At EAGx Amsterdam, I shared most of this as a talk. I was afraid I'd run out of time, so I decided to do things backwards and start with the thank you. I did not want to miss the most important thing. Since I might lose you halfway reading this long and personal piece, I decided to keep this order.

The EA community creates a space that makes it easier to donate and to live my values—and to be okay with living in this world. It normalizes caring about effectiveness and spreadsheets, provides frameworks and research and feedback. This community makes me feel less alone in trying to navigate the absurdity and burden of existence.

My Story, Not Yours

I am assuming that anything I do is determined by luck and circumstance, nature and nurture. Therefore, one way to explain why I donate is to show you some of those things. This is personal; my story might not be applicable or relatable to you. I’m not sure there's anything practical you can learn from it. But maybe my experience raises questions that help you in your giving journey.

First I’ll tell you about my life [...]

---

Outline:

(00:10) Thank you

(00:53) My Story, Not Yours

(01:39) My life

(08:01) I donate because it helps others

(08:17) It's my responsibility to do something

(09:23) I should do good responsibly

(10:20) I donate because it helps me

(10:30) Retail Therapy Donation Therapy Effective Giving

(12:39) Convenience of effective giving

(14:06) This is how I can live the lives I wont get to live

(15:16) How I Donate

---

First published:

December 31st, 2026

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/bRMQB85KXz6uzqXkf/why-i-donate-a-personal-story

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

---

Images from the article:

Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

An all too common reason I’ve seen to “quit EA” is disliking aspects of the community. Maybe “they’re” too focused on the “wrong cause area” or are skeptical of yours. Maybe “they” annoy you. Maybe “they” publicly attacked you.

I’m putting quotation marks around “they” to highlight an important thing: EA is composed of individuals.

Some EAs may annoy you / focus on the "wrong cause area" / publicly attack you / [insert your reason here].

But you don’t have to hang out with them!

Imagine you decided you didn’t like science because you didn’t like some scientists. Or even most scientists!

That might affect the frequency you go to science conferences. But that shouldn’t affect your appreciation of science itself.

Yes, science is a community, but it's also a practice, a goal, a method, an idea, results. EA is too.

Not to mention - you don’t have to interact with most scientists! Or EAs! You can just be picky.

I only interact with “most EAs” when I post on the EA Forum or the EA subreddit. Otherwise I’ve found my favorite EAs and hangout with them regularly. I treat them as [...]

---

First published:

December 28th, 2025

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/QPtimJrGBRyqiYzip/don-t-stop-being-an-ea-because-you-dislike-eas-you-don-t

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

Note: I used LLMs to draft different parts of this. I've checked almost everything, but there might be some mistakes remaining.

Apologies for posting this on Christmas Eve. I wanted to get this out the door before the end of the year. Questions welcome, and if it's easy to pull metrics to answer them, I will.

Summary

80,000 Hours launched a video program in 2025 focused on longform, cinematic, personality-driven content about AI risks. Our first two longform releases were:

• We're Not Ready for Superintelligence (the "AI 2027" video): 8.9M views, ~1.4M watch hours
• If you remember one AI disaster, make it this one (the "MechaHitler" video): 2.7M views, ~419K watch hours

Both videos significantly outperformed our expectations (we'd anticipated 15-50K views for the first). The cost per engagement hour ($0.11 and $0.39 respectively, including staff time) compares favorably to other 80,000 Hours programs.

This post covers: what we spent, what we got, why we think it worked, and what we'd do differently.

The numbersCostsCategoryAI 2027MechaHitlerDirect costs~$50K~$64KStaff hours~450 hrs~450 hrs (Note, I’m assuming it's about the same as for AI 2027, I didn't re-ask people how much time they spent.)Total cost (making some assumptions about we should incorporate staff [...]

---

Outline:

(00:34) Summary

(01:33) The numbers

(01:36) Costs

(02:16) Timing

(02:40) Results

(03:46) How valuable is a video watch hour?

(04:24) Qualitative Feedback

(04:28) AI 2027

(05:51) MechaHitler

(06:12) YouTube commenters like:

(06:52) What the comments don't like:

(07:17) Qualitative Analysis

(07:21) Why we think AI 2027 did well

(09:56) Why MechaHitler did less well (but still well)

(10:50) Lessons Learned

(10:54) Overall what we think matters

(11:25) Our guess at what's less important (though we're certainly unsure, maybe if we nailed these, we'd get more success)

(12:24) How our production works

(12:43) The timeline

(13:32) Ideation

(14:06) Scripting

(14:57) Shooting

(15:31) Reshoots / Voiceover

(15:45) Editing

(16:06) Launch

(17:00) What we're still figuring out

(17:36) Closing thoughts

---

First published:

December 24th, 2025

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/RCRaBYSqBaMzHzTjF/untitled-retrospective-and-learnings-from-ai-in-context-s

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

---

Images from the article:

Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

I really enjoyed reading the "why I donate" posts in the past week, so much so that I felt compelled to add my reflections, in case someone finds my reasons as interesting as I found theirs.

1. My money needs to be spent on something, might as well spend it on the most efficient things

The core reason I give is something that I think is under-represented in the other posts: the money I have and earn will need to be spent on something, and it feels extremely inefficient and irrational to spend it on my future self when it can provide >100x as much to others.

To me, it doesn't seem important whether I'm in the global top 10% or bottom 10%, or whether the money I have is due to my efforts or to the place I was born. If it can provide others 100x as much, it just seems inefficient/irrational to allocate it to myself.

Honestly, the post could end here, but there are other secondary reasons/perspectives on why I personally donate that I haven't seen commonly discussed.

2. Spending money is voting on how the global economy allocates its resources

In 2017, I read Wealth [...]

---

Outline:

(00:22) 1. My money needs to be spent on something, might as well spend it on the most efficient things

(01:09) 2. Spending money is voting on how the global economy allocates its resources

(04:11) 3. I dont think its as bad as some make it out to be

(07:35) 4. I donate because Im an atheist (/s)

---

First published:

December 15th, 2025

Source:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/CSKob9hGmWM7f7yv8/i-give-because-it-s-the-most-rational-way-to-spend-my-money

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.