“Ubuntu stresses empathy and compassion, enabling people to sympathize with the difficulties and goals of others.” I really like this thread throughout the post. When I wear my EA hat I often start thinking very individualistically like “how can I optimize my impact” rather than thinking collectively. I think I would be better off thinking from more of an Ubuntu perspective. Thank you!

makes sense on the understanding of contextual nuances - I agree that on-the-ground understanding is under-practiced in charity work generally, including in EA.

I still don't quite understand what you're advocating for in terms of targeted funding. Don't most EA organizations and individuals donating in EA already do targeted funding?

You say "Instead of dispersing funds indiscriminately or generically, targeted funding directs resources to specified areas or objectives in order to accomplish desired results." 

Are there examples you are thinking of where EA-aligned individuals or organizations are "dispersing funds indiscriminately or generically"? I feel that actually EA folkds are quite good at directing funding "to specified areas or objectives in order to accomplish desired results". For example:

• Bednets are funded to reduce malaria incidence
• Cash is given to specific people to improve overall well-being
• deworming pills are provided to improve school attendance

Is there a particular type of activity you think EA organizations engage in where they lack targeting?

Or are you more just saying that overall the charity space doesn't do enough targeted funding, and EA should try to get more donors to do targeted funding?

I’m not clear what the main argument is. Is it simply that EA approaches have already helped Africa broadly across a variety of issues, and that EAs should continue funding and doing initiatives in Africa? Or are there particular types of work you think are neglected and that EA should focus on?

Lots of good points here!

Just to isolate and respond on the "black tax" comment: The perspective I have heard from talking to Kenyan entrepreneurs about this is I have a familial financial obligation that expat  entrepreneurs do not have. It prevents me from being as risk-taking as I might otherwise be

Here is a direct quote from an entrepreneur I interviewed for a project: "there's so many cool, really smart Kenyans and local entrepreneurs. But then there's the sort of like 'black tax'. It's family, and there's all this stuff. And the pressure to make it I think, pushes people to more safer choices, as opposed to picking something that's a little bit more high risk"

Whatever you might think about the effectiveness or the cultural value of this expectation, I think the term "black tax" does capture that this is a financial obligation for some.

This is a secondhand viewpoint - I am not black nor African. I'd love to hear opinions on this from people with firsthand experience.

I strongly agree. 

Funding seems quite tractable - there could be a fund specifically for assisting EAs from Africa to go to conferences.

On the visa assistance thing I'm not sure what would be very tractable - maybe there is some way these conferences could position themselves that would make it easier for Africans to get "education"-related visas rather than tourist visas (e.g., if EAG positioned itself as an academic conference somehow, would that enable people to apply under more lenient visa categories)?

It's the geographic proximity that I get hung up on though. He is right in front of the Samaritan. I can't think of any parables that involve someone showing mercy to a person who is not right in front of them.

Every time Jesus performs a miracle, it is for someone right in front of him.

I am strongly in favor of more impartiality, but think most Christians find it a stretch to say that the Good Samaritan parable is meant to imply we should care for future people and people on the other side of the world who they will never meet.

It's a good point about the moral circle expansion.

Maybe I can flip it and ask you: To the extent that Christians do not behave impartially towards people in other countries or people who won't be born for hundreds of years, do you think they are failing to follow the teachings of Christ?

Thanks for the pushback!

I am not trying to argue that Christianity does not support impartiality - there are certainly plausible readings of Jesus's teachings (like that of the Good Samaritan) as plausibly supporting impartiality.

I'm more trying to argue that Jesus's teaching does not necessarily push you to that conclusion.

Jesus is very explicit about the importance of things like:

• helping those in need - the widow, the orphan
• being faithful to the Father
• being humble and meek
• not seeking salvation in this world

And the church has emphasized those teachings in the 2000 years since.

I everyone who studies Christianity comes away saying those traits are core to Christianity - even if not all Christians practice them.

But very few Christians arrive at the conclusion that we should try to help people on the other side of the world or who are not alive yet with just as much effort as we try to help the people in our immediate community. So I think it's fair to say that the idea of impartiality is not core to the Christian worldview and belief the way charity, faith, humility, are. It's not intuitive for most Christians the way those other traits are (again - even if they don't achieve).

If Jesus had told such a parable, maybe impartiality would be more intuitive to more Christians.

I'm curious - do you think that impartiality directly follows from Christian teaching? Maybe it follows directly than I am thinking, or I have a weird notion about what it means for something to be "consistent" with a religion vs. "following" from it.

Seems like working at Novavax to improve their implementation could be a super high-value career choice!

Makes me think that a list of "companies that are underrated and critical in important supply chains" could be quite a useful resource for people brainstorming career options.

Unfortunately I don't know anything at all about this literature, but I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't many studies. There are certaintly non-altruistic reasons for existing governments to favor schooling as we have it - teaching rule-following, instilling patriotism, ability to mold young minds in a particular kind of way.

My guess would be that there are huge improvements to be had in the ways that most countries do education, and that more experiments would be helpful. More radical education attempts seem valuable.