Blog post by Cody Fenwick · Published December 15th, 2023
The idea this giving season: figuring out where to donate is tricky, but a few key tips can help.
There are lots of pressing problems in the world, and even more possible solutions. We mostly focus on careers, but donating to effective organisations tackling these problems — if you can — is another great way to help.
But how can you figure out where it’s best to donate?
Our article on choosing where to donate lays out how you can make this choice. First, you have to decide whether:
You want to defer to someone you think is trustworthy, shares your values, and has already evaluated charities. Just following their recommendations can save you work. (We discuss some options below.)
You want to do your own research instead, which might allow you to find unusually high-impact options matched to your specific values, plus improve your knowledge of effective giving.
You can also enter a donor lottery — learn more about them here.
If you decide to do your own research, you can use our article to figure out how much time you should spend. For example, we think young people might especially benefit from doing research since they’ll learn lessons about charity evaluation that they can apply for a long time in the future.
If you do your own research, we recommend you:
Decide which global problems you think are most pressing right now.
We’d guess Bohlin’s impact wasn’t quite that large. For one thing, seat belts already existed: in 1951, a Y-shaped three-point seat belt was patented that avoided the risks of internal injuries from simple lap belts. Bohlin’s innovation was doing this with just one strap, making it simple and convenient to use. For another thing, it seems likely that someone else would have come up with Bohlin’s design eventually.
Nevertheless, a simple estimate suggests that Bohlin saved hundreds of lives at the very least — incredible for such a simple piece of engineering.
Thanks to Jessica Wen and Sean Lawrence at High Impact Engineers for their help with this article. Much of the content is based on their website.
Also, having skills in this area means you’ll likely be highly paid, offering excellent options to earn to give.
Moreover, basic programming skills can be extremely useful whatever you end up doing. You’ll find ways to automate tasks or analyse data throughout your career.
What does a career using software and tech skills involve?
A career using these skills typically involves three steps:
Learn to code with a university course or self-study and then find positions where you can get great mentorship. (Read more about how to get started.)
Optionally, specialise in a particular area, for example, by building skills in machine learning or information security.
Apply your skills to helping solve a pressing global problem.
Skill by Benjamin Hilton · Last updated December 2023 · First published September 2023
What specialist knowledge is valuable?
Many highly specific areas of knowledge seem applicable to solving the world’s most pressing problems, especially risks posed by biotechnology and artificial intelligence.
In particular we’d highlight:
Subfields of biology relevant to pandemic prevention. Working on many of the possible technical solutions to reduce the risk of pandemics will require expertise in parts of biology. We’d particularly highlight synthetic biology, mathematical biology, virology, immunology, pharmacology, and vaccinology. This expertise can also be helpful for pursuing a biorisk-focused policy career. (Read more about careers to prevent catastrophic pandemics.)
AI hardware. Specialised hardware is a crucial input to the development of frontier AI systems. As a result, we expect expertise in AI hardware to become increasingly important to the governance of AI systems. (Read more about becoming an expert in AI hardware).
Many of the highest-impact people in history have been communicators and advocates of one kind or another.
Take Rosa Parks, who in 1955 refused to give up her seat to a white man on a bus, sparking a protest which led to a Supreme Court ruling that segregated buses were unconstitutional. Parks was a seamstress in her day job, but in her spare time she was involved with the civil rights movement. When Parks sat down on that bus, she wasn’t acting completely spontaneously: just a few months before she’d been attending workshops on effective communication and civil disobedience, and the resulting boycott was carefully planned by Parks and the local NAACP. After she was arrested, they used widely distributed fliers to launch a total boycott of buses in a city with 40,000 African Americans, while simultaneously pushing forward with legal action. This led to major progress for civil rights.
There are many ways to communicate ideas. One is social advocacy, like Rosa Parks. Another is more like being an individual public intellectual, who can either specialise in a mass audience (like Carl Sagan), or a particular niche (like Paul Farmer, a medical anthropologist who wrote about global health). Or you can learn skills in marketing and public relations and then work as part of a team or organisation to spread important ideas.
Why are communication skills valuable?
In the 20th century, smallpox killed around 400 million people — far more than died in all the century’s wars and political famines.
Lead is one of the most poisonous things going. A single sugar sachet of lead, spread over a park the size of an American football field, is enough to give a child that regularly plays there lead poisoning. For life they’ll be condemned to a ~3-point-lower IQ; a 50% higher risk of heart attacks; and elevated risk of kidney disease, anaemia, and ADHD, among other effects.
We’ve known lead is a health nightmare for at least 50 years, and that got lead out of car fuel everywhere. So is the situation under control? Not even close.
Around half the kids in poor and middle-income countries have blood lead levels above 5 micrograms per decilitre; the US declared a national emergency when just 5% of the children in Flint, Michigan exceeded that level. The collective damage this is doing to children’s intellectual potential, health, and life expectancy is vast — the health damage involved is around that caused by malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV combined.
This week’s guest, Lucia Coulter — cofounder of the incredibly successful Lead Exposure Elimination Project (LEEP) — speaks about how LEEP has been reducing childhood lead exposure in poor countries by getting bans on lead in paint enforced.
Various estimates suggest the work is absurdly cost effective. LEEP is in expectation preventing kids from getting lead poisoning for under $2 per child (explore the analysis here). Or, looking at it differently, LEEP is saving a year of healthy life for $14, and in the long run is increasing people’s lifetime income anywhere from $300–1,200 for each $1 it spends, by preventing intellectual stunting.
Which raises the question: why hasn’t this happened already? How is lead still in paint in most poor countries, even when that’s oftentimes already illegal? And how is LEEP able to get bans on leaded paint enforced in a country while spending barely tens of thousands of dollars? When leaded paint is gone, what should they target next?
With host Robert Wiblin, Lucia answers all those questions and more:
Why LEEP isn’t fully funded, and what it would do with extra money (you can donate here).
How bad lead poisoning is in rich countries.
Why lead is still in aeroplane fuel.
How lead got put straight in food in Bangladesh, and a handful of people got it removed.
Why the enormous damage done by lead mostly goes unnoticed.
The other major sources of lead exposure aside from paint.
Generalisable lessons LEEP has learned from coordinating with governments in poor countries.
And plenty more.
Producer and editor: Keiran Harris Audio Engineering Lead: Ben Cordell Technical editing: Milo McGuire and Dominic Armstrong Transcriptions: Katy Moore
China will likely play an especially influential role in determining the outcome of many of the biggest challenges of the next century. India also seems very likely to be important over the next few decades, and many other non-western countries — for example, Russia — are also major players on the world stage.
A lack of understanding and coordination between all these countries and the West means we might not tackle those challenges as well as we can (and need to).
So it’s going to be very valuable to have more people gaining real experience with emerging powers, especially China, and then specialising in the intersection of emerging powers and pressing global problems.
Why is experience with an emerging power (especially China) valuable?
The Chinese government ‘s spending on artificial intelligence research and development is estimated to be on the same order of magnitude as that of the US government.
As the largest trading partner of North Korea, China plays an important role in reducing the chance of conflict, especially nuclear conflict, on the Korean peninsula.
China is the largest emitter of CO2, accounting for 30% of the global total.
Skill by Benjamin Hilton · Last updated December 2023 · First published September 2023
Norman Borlaug was an agricultural scientist. Through years of research, he developed new, high-yielding, disease-resistant varieties of wheat.
It might not sound like much, but as a result of Borlaug’s research, wheat production in India and Pakistan almost doubled between 1965 and 1970, and formerly famine-stricken countries across the world were suddenly able to produce enough food for their entire populations. These developments have been credited with saving up to a billion people from famine, and in 1970, Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Not everyone can be a Norman Borlaug, and not every discovery gets adopted. Nevertheless, we think research can often be one of the most valuable skill sets to build — if you’re a good fit.
Suzy Deuster wanted to be a public defender, a career path that could help hundreds receive fair legal representation. But she realised that by shifting her focus to government work, she could improve the justice system for thousands or even millions. Suzy ended up doing just that from her position in the US Executive Office of the President, working on criminal justice reform.
This logic doesn’t just apply to criminal justice. For almost any global issue you’re interested in, roles in powerful institutions like governments often offer unique and high-leverage ways to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time.
Together, this suggests that building the skills needed to get things done in large institutions could give you a lot of opportunities to have an impact.
Skill by Benjamin Todd · Last updated December 2023 · First published September 2023
When most people think of careers that “do good,” the first thing they think of is working at a charity.
The thing is, lots of jobs at charities just aren’t that impactful.
Some charities focus on programmes that don’t work, like Scared Straight, which actually caused kids to commit more crimes. Others focus on ways of helping that, while thoughtful and helpful, don’t have much leverage, like knitting individual sweaters for penguins affected by oil spills (this actually happened!) instead of funding large-scale ocean cleanup projects.
While this penguin certainly looks all warm and cosy, we’d guess that knitting each sweater one-by-one wouldn’t be the best use of an organisation’s time.
But there are also many organisations out there — both for-profit and nonprofit — focused on pressing problems, implementing effective and scalable solutions, run by great teams, and in need of people.
If you can build skills that are useful for helping an organisation like this, it could well be one of the highest-impact things you can do.
In particular, organisations often need generalists able to do the bread and butter of building an organisation — hiring people, management, administration, communications, running software systems, crafting strategy, fundraising, and so on.
We call these ‘organisation-building’ skills. They can be high impact because you can increase the scale and effectiveness of the organisation you’re working at, while also gaining skills that can be applied to a wide range of global problems in the future (and make you generally employable too).
Problem profile by The 80,000 Hours team · Last updated December 2023 · First published April 2020
Some of the deadliest events in history have been pandemics. COVID-19 demonstrated that we’re still vulnerable to these events, and future outbreaks could be far more lethal.
In fact, we face the possibility of biological disasters that are worse than ever before due to developments in technology.
The chances of such catastrophic pandemics — bad enough to potentially derail civilisation and threaten humanity’s future — seem uncomfortably high. We believe this risk is one of the world’s most pressing problems.
And there are a number of practical options for reducing global catastrophic biological risks (GCBRs). So we think working to reduce GCBRs is one of the most promising ways to safeguard the future of humanity right now.
In today’s episode, host Luisa Rodriguez speaks to Nita Farahany — professor of law and philosophy at Duke Law School — about applications of cutting-edge neurotechnology.
They cover:
How close we are to actual mind reading.
How hacking neural interfaces could cure depression.
How companies might use neural data in the workplace — like tracking how productive you are, or using your emotional states against you in negotiations.
How close we are to being able to unlock our phones by singing a song in our heads.
How neurodata has been used for interrogations, and even criminal prosecutions.
The possibility of linking brains to the point where you could experience exactly the same thing as another person.
Military applications of this tech, including the possibility of one soldier controlling swarms of drones with their mind.
And plenty more.
Producer and editor: Keiran Harris Audio Engineering Lead: Ben Cordell Technical editing: Simon Monsour and Milo McGuire Additional content editing: Katy Moore and Luisa Rodriguez Transcriptions: Katy Moore
In this episode of 80k After Hours — recorded in June 2022 — Rob Wiblin and Benjamin Todd discuss the history of 80,000 Hours.
They cover:
Ben’s origin story
How 80,000 Hours got off the ground
Its scrappy early days
How 80,000 Hours evolved
Team trips to China and Thailand
The choice to set up several programmes rather than focus on one
The move to California and back
Various mistakes they think 80,000 Hours has made along the way
Why Ben left the CEO position
And the future of 80,000 Hours
Who this episode is for:
People who work on or plan to work on promoting important ideas in a way that’s similar to 80,000 Hours
People who work at organisations similar to 80,000 Hours
People who work at 80,000 Hours
Who this episode isn’t for:
People who, if asked if they’d like to join a dinner at 80,000 Hours where the team reminisce on the good old days, would say, “Sorry, can’t make it — I’m washing my hair that night”
Producer: Keiran Harris Audio mastering: Ryan Kessler and Ben Cordell
In today’s episode, host Luisa Rodriguez interviews Jeff Sebo — director of the Mind, Ethics, and Policy Program at NYU — about preparing for a world with digital minds.
They cover:
The non-negligible chance that AI systems will be sentient by 2030
What AI systems might want and need, and how that might affect our moral concepts
What happens when beings can copy themselves? Are they one person or multiple people? Does the original own the copy or does the copy have its own rights? Do copies get the right to vote?
What kind of legal and political status should AI systems have? Legal personhood? Political citizenship?
What happens when minds can be connected? If two minds are connected, and one does something illegal, is it possible to punish one but not the other?
The repugnant conclusion and the rebugnant conclusion
The experience of trying to build the field of AI welfare
What improv comedy can teach us about doing good in the world
And plenty more.
Producer and editor: Keiran Harris Audio Engineering Lead: Ben Cordell Technical editing: Dominic Armstrong and Milo McGuire Additional content editing: Katy Moore and Luisa Rodriguez Transcriptions: Katy Moore
Is following important political and international news a civic duty — or is it our civic duty to avoid it?
It’s common to think that ‘staying informed’ and checking the headlines every day is just what responsible adults do.
But in today’s episode, host Rob Wiblin is joined by economist Bryan Caplan to discuss the book Stop Reading the News: A Manifesto for a Happier, Calmer and Wiser Life — which argues that reading the news both makes us miserable and distorts our understanding of the world. Far from informing us and enabling us to improve the world, consuming the news distracts us, confuses us, and leaves us feeling powerless.
In the first half of the episode, Bryan and Rob discuss various alleged problems with the news, including:
That it overwhelmingly provides us with information we can’t usefully act on.
That it’s very non-representative in what it covers, in particular favouring the negative over the positive and the new over the significant.
That it obscures the big picture, falling into the trap of thinking ‘something important happens every day.’
That it’s highly addictive, for many people chewing up 10% or more of their waking hours.
That regularly checking the news leaves us in a state of constant distraction and less able to engage in deep thought.
And plenty more.
Bryan and Rob conclude that if you want to understand the world, you’re better off blocking news websites and spending your time on Wikipedia, Our World in Data, or reading a textbook. And if you want to generate political change, stop reading about problems you already know exist and instead write your political representative a physical letter — or better yet, go meet them in person.
In the second half of the episode, Bryan and Rob cover:
Why Bryan is pretty sceptical that AI is going to lead to extreme, rapid changes, or that there’s a meaningful chance of it going terribly.
Bryan’s case that rational irrationality on the part of voters leads to many very harmful policy decisions.
How to allocate resources in space.
Bryan’s experience homeschooling his kids.
Producer and editor: Keiran Harris Audio Engineering Lead: Ben Cordell Technical editing: Simon Monsour and Milo McGuire Transcriptions: Katy Moore
The idea this week: it’s incredible how dedicated many of you are to helping others.
One of my favourite parts of working on the one-on-one advising team is getting to see the important work so many people are doing up close. It’s incredibly inspiring to learn about the thoughtful, dedicated steps you’re taking to have an impact. In our conversations, we get to directly express appreciation for each person’s efforts. But we only get to do that for a fraction of readers, and only occasionally.
So I wanted to take this chance to say thank you to all of you working so hard and intentionally to help others. There are countless ways to make a difference — different problems needing solutions and different approaches to tackle them. I can’t speak to nearly all of those here. But I do want to highlight a few examples of work I know many of you are doing that I find deeply admirable.
To those working long hours at a challenging job in order to donate a significant portion of your salary to effective organisations — thank you. It’s hard to stay motivated when the work itself doesn’t feel valuable. It’s hard to make time outside a full-time job to thoughtfully decide where your money can do the most good. And it can be tough being surrounded by people with different values who get to directly enjoy the fruits of their labour rather than using it to reduce suffering.
In today’s episode, host Luisa Rodriguez interviews award-winning investigative journalist Alison Young on the surprising frequency of lab leaks and what needs to be done to prevent them in the future.
They cover:
The most egregious biosafety mistakes made by the CDC, and how Alison uncovered them through her investigative reporting
The Dugway life science test facility case, where live anthrax was accidentally sent to labs across the US and several other countries over a period of many years
The time the Soviets had a major anthrax leak, and then hid it for over a decade
The 1977 influenza pandemic caused by vaccine trial gone wrong in China
The last death from smallpox, caused not by the virus spreading in the wild, but by a lab leak in the UK
Ways we could get more reliable oversight and accountability for these labs
And the investigative work Alison’s most proud of
Producer and editor: Keiran Harris Audio Engineering Lead: Ben Cordell Technical editing: Simon Monsour and Milo McGuire Additional content editing: Katy Moore and Luisa Rodriguez Transcriptions: Katy Moore
Take the White House. This week, President Joe Biden announced a sweeping new executive order to respond to the risks potentially posed by advanced AI systems, including risks to national security.
A requirement for AI labs working on the most powerful models to share information about safety tests and training plans
Direction to the National Institute of Standards and Technology to create standards for red teaming and assessing the safety of powerful new AI models
Efforts to reduce the risk of AI-related biological threats and to mitigate cybersecurity vulnerabilities
Provisions on fraud, privacy, equity, civil rights, workers’ rights, and international coordination
Vice President Kamala Harris also announced the creation of the United States AI Safety Institute this week, which will help evaluate and mitigate dangerous capabilities of AI models.
In today’s episode, host Luisa Rodriguez interviews Paul Niehaus — cofounder of GiveDirectly — on the case for giving unconditional cash to the world’s poorest households.
They cover:
The empirical evidence on whether giving cash directly can drive meaningful economic growth
How the impacts of GiveDirectly compare to USAID employment programmes
GiveDirectly vs GiveWell’s top-recommended charities
How long-term guaranteed income affects people’s risk-taking and investments
Whether recipients prefer getting lump sums or monthly instalments
How GiveDirectly tackles cases of fraud and theft
The case for universal basic income, and GiveDirectly’s UBI studies in Kenya, Malawi, and Liberia
The political viability of UBI
Plenty more
Producer and editor: Keiran Harris Audio Engineering Lead: Ben Cordell Technical editing: Dominic Armstrong and Milo McGuire Additional content editing: Katy Moore and Luisa Rodriguez Transcriptions: Katy Moore
