Scott discusses the challenge of incorporating animal welfare into effective altruism, proposing a balanced approach to expand moral circles while preserving sanity. Longer summary

Scott reflects on a discussion with Buck about animal welfare in effective altruism. The argument suggests that if animals have non-zero moral value, their welfare should vastly outweigh human concerns due to their numbers. Scott acknowledges the logic but struggles with fully accepting it. He compares this to the process of widening circles of concern, from self to family to community to all humanity. Scott concludes that he, like most people, never fully completes this process of expanding concern. Instead, he proposes a meta-consistent approach of allocating some resources to each new circle of concern while reserving the rest for sanity, allowing him to accept the importance of animal welfare without completely abandoning human-focused causes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that military interventions can potentially be a cost-effective way to help foreigners, contrary to a Slate article's claim. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a Slate article arguing that military interventions are an expensive way to help foreigners. He argues that comparing interventions to GiveWell's top charities is flawed reasoning, and presents a cost-effectiveness analysis of the 2011 Libya intervention. Using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as a metric, he calculates that the Libya intervention cost about $65 per QALY, which is slightly more cost-effective than donations to the Against Malaria Foundation at $75 per QALY. Scott emphasizes that both figures are extremely low compared to typical healthcare interventions. He concludes that military interventions can potentially be very cost-effective for humanitarian goals, though they come with risks and unpredictable consequences. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses Robin Hanson's idea of investing charitable donations for later use, exploring psychological resistance and attempting to debunk it with various arguments. Longer summary

Scott Alexander attends a talk on efficient charity and discusses Robin Hanson's controversial ideas about investing charitable donations instead of giving immediately. He explores the psychological resistance to this idea and attempts to debunk it with various arguments, including the declining efficacy of charity over time and the possibility of a technological singularity. Despite initially expecting to conclude that investing donations is a bad idea, his rough calculations suggest it might be beneficial unless there's a high chance of catastrophic events preventing future donation. Shorter summary