This article is about how mosquitos seem to have adapted to avoid biting during the night time so they can avoid the nets:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-b ... breakfast/

This isn't bad news until we have actual evidence that organizations like AMF aren't effective.

I've decided to hold all my donations until GiveWell writes about the issue, which they've promised to do soon.

Given the compounding value of donations it might be better to donate to whatever you think is the next best cause in the meantime.

What's the compounding value of donations?

People in better health (and with better education) seem likely to do a lot more for the global economy than your money will sitting in investments.

peterhurford wrote:I've decided to hold all my donations until GiveWell writes about the issue, which they've promised to do soon.

GiveDirectly doesn't have this problem, since they don't dictate how the poor use the money.

HedonicTreader wrote:

peterhurford wrote:I've decided to hold all my donations until GiveWell writes about the issue, which they've promised to do soon.

GiveDirectly doesn't have this problem, since they don't dictate how the poor use the money.

Following GiveWell, thinks highly of GiveDirectly, I still think AMF (and malaria-based interventions in general) are still the best donation with the goal of eliminating global poverty. GiveWell has some analysis on this issue.

Moreover, GiveWell has re-evaluated AMF and found them to still be outstanding and has commented on this specific problem of adaptation, so my connection to AMF has been restored and will be fulfilling my Giving What We Can pledge to them*.

~

*Though, I'm currently interested in doing what I can to get around GWWC's specific dedication to global poverty and funnel more money to top nonhuman animal interventions, so I will consider donating part or all of my GWWC 10% to 80K Hours, with the expectation that they'll funnel additional money to better causes. Though I won't give anything to them until they answer these questions to my satisfaction.

I still think it's worth it, at least now in the scheme of things while my income is low, to maintain a GWWC membership, despite not liking their somewhat speciesist focus on global poverty. I also still like the idea of donating to GiveWell because they're analysis is still much more thorough (and thus gives me significantly more certainty in the generated utility) than that of EAA recommendations.