I Am The 1%

Thanks for this! I think there should be a lot more introduction material to effective altruism, and this is a great step.

One stat I'd nitpick: I think GiveWell and other charity effectiveness estimators would pretty strongly disagree with the statement that someone can save a life with $586.

First, $586 is on the very low end of GiveWell's estimates for the cost of saving a life. From their website: "As of November 2016, the median estimate of our top charities' cost-effectiveness ranged from ~$900 to ~$7,000 per equivalent life saved."

Second, that's not literally saying $ per life saved, it's saying $ per "equivalent life saved". GiveWell does moral weight conversions, meaning e.g. if an intervention increases consumption by 25% for 100 people for one year, using their moral weight system, that would be equivalent to saving 0.685 lives. It's tough to make conversions like that, but it's essential in a world with unavoidable tradeoffs - but we should be transparent about when we're doing these conversions. (I'm actually not sure if this is an important factor in the fistula case, more just a general warning.)

Third, GiveWell seems to strongly believe that "we can't take expected value estimates literally, even when they're unbiased", because experience shows that exceptionally effective charities are simply rare. An example: if a high school physics student collects some experimental data that disproves F=ma, do you believe him? No, because this new evidence is much weaker than our prior belief. Similarly, if a new charity comes out with an estimate that says it can save a life for $1, do we believe it? Probably not - not because the study was flawed or biased or malicious or anything like that, but because there's way better odds the study was somehow wrong than there are that they can actually saves lives for $1.

One of the toughest parts about intros to EA is dealing with numbers like these. It's been debated with Giving What We Can and Will MacAskill's Doing Good Better. It's tempting and effective to give a jarring headline like "This campaign saved #x lives today", but all in all, I think it's the right move not to oversell and to be honest about our uncertainty.

(But seriously, really cool project)

I like that you cited multiple sources with different perspectives on the world income distribution, rather than simply asserting a single number that someone could easily challenge. It's important to recognize the uncertainty associated with data like this (though it's also important, of course, to accept that any realistic numbers would still lead to the same basic point about how globally wealthy the average developed-world citizen is).

Regarding the video:

• You've done a very good thing by making a generous donation to Fistula Foundation! My comments on the form/text of the video don't take away from the fact that you've contributed to making a difference in the lives of suffering people.
• In the past, many EA community groups ran Live Below the Line fundraisers, where members would live for a week using only a tiny amount of money (below the global extreme poverty line), subsisting on small amounts of basic food (but living in their usual homes/dorms/etc.). This seems similar to your campaign here.
• In my experience, this led to some positive feedback, but also a lot of reasonable negative feedback. The latter came from people who pointed out that a short stint of temporary poverty was quite different from the lived experience of poverty, and that suggesting any sort of comparison between the experience of a hungry college student and someone living on $750/year wasn't a good idea. I'm neutral on that question myself, but empirically, there are risks to any fundraiser that involves or even hints at this kind of comparison.
• The quote "if you think this lifestyle is a little odd, you are out of touch with how most people in the world live" seems harsh, and fairly inaccurate; only a small fraction of the global population is "homeless", and even the average poor person's home still offers some shelter from the elements (very few people live completely exposed to nature).