So I guess what I'm saying is... why not both? Donate to charitable organizations, but not exclusively. Also go out of your way to (anonymously or not) do charitable things to individuals.
There's something to be said about helping those around you directly as a way to build a better local community. Especially when you can help 'for free' (e.g. by helping someone with a flat, as I mentioned).
Now, that said, if we are talking about giving out $10'000, and we're sort of encouraging more to do it (by sharing how we donate), at that magnitude and scale I think it would be better if we encouraged people to donate more effectively.
I think this is hard for monetary assistance where there really is a direct tradeoff. It's hard to say well I'll keep this $1000 to help someone I find individually when those $1000 instead donated to a faceless charity would probably save another persons life.
If you don't know an individual who needs the $1000, then sure, donate to charity. But not all charity has to be in the form of large cash gifts and not all charity recipients have to be cancer patients on the verge of death. Sometimes being charitable to individuals is as simple as taking out a coworker or neighbor to lunch and just talking to them. Lots of people suffer from loneliness, depression, and things other than cancer and would benefit enormously from someone going out of their way and showing an act of love to them.
> I think equating dollars to lives is too utilitarian a take to be useful IMHO. The goal of charity could be so much more than "lives saved". It could be "lives improved" which cascades into "societies improved".
Sure, but I guess I think "life saved" is probably the extreme case of life improved.
I think helping people in our proximity personally is the best course of action. That way, we know that our money isn't ending up in some greedy grifter's pocket - and if enough people do it, the effect can be greater than that of any charity.
The impact of a dollar in the developing world is so much more than anyone that you could help who is in close proximity to the typical HN commentator that it would take an absolutely massive amount of graft to equalize the two.
* (where by the way they also end up poisoning fish and people when the malaria nets become fishing nets)
Yes, some of charity money actually goes to those in need. But what part of it does go to the people who use that money to further exploit those very people they're helping? What if the total result is actually net-negative?
I believe that greed is a much more common motivator than altruism.
The kind of charity that is most likely to be fraudulent or completely ineffectual, is a small, local one. The bigger the organisation, the more cost-effective it is to do checks.
> The kind of charity that is most likely to be fraudulent or completely ineffectual, is a small, local one. The bigger the organisation, the more cost-effective it is to do checks.
It's actually the other way around. The bigger the organization, the more room it has to cook its books and bribe the verifiers. Also, the bigger the organization, the bigger the tax cuts, which means bigger motivation for grifters.
It is true that many charities are inefficient. Some are fraudulent. Still, it is overall far more effective in the whole to give to organizations that can impact at scale.
You can't know that. Those organizations might as well be making the problem worse, if nothing else then for the sake of keeping the money flowing.
See cobra effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origina...
1. Could you quantify "often"? Are you suggesting at least 10%? If so, that's a bold empirical claim that needs justification. If it's under 10%, then giving $100, even when you know $10 goes to "waste" shouldn't be a deterrent.
2. It's not hard to find charities that are not corrupt (and most-importantly are cost-effective) with the money you give, look at this list of very thoroughly-vetted charities: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities
Websites that act as arbiters of charity justice don't help either, for the same reason - who is verifying the verifiers? It seems to me that the most corrupt charities would be most motivated to boost their numbers on various vetting websites, while the legitimate ones would be too busy actually doing something to bother dealing with internet politics.
Have you looked at GiveWell's review process? What doubts do you have that the charities GiveWell recommends are close-to-impeccable? Are you suggesting the documentation of interviews, onsite visits, etc are not based on reality? To insist on principle without looking at how things are seems to be a disingenuous armchair philosophizing, rather than a desire to do any good.
> To insist on principle without looking at how things are seems to be a disingenuous armchair philosophizing, rather than a desire to do any good.
To insist that greed is not a powerful human motivator, much more powerful than altruism, is being naive.
If you rephrase that question without the false dichotomy, and preferably with an explanation what exact difference does it make whether or not I looked, I'll be glad to answer it.
I've known a number of people that have spent a good portion of their lives working in charities. They all have the same story. Living in near poverty themselves to help people in need. The one day they wake up and realize that the charity is not only taking advantage of them, but also exploiting the money they take even though they make it look good on paper.
The problem with free anonymous money is that the temptation to grift it is just too high and eventually someone in power will succumb to the temptation.
I encourage you to go to a charity event. Take note of something while you are there. How many beautiful women are around? I guarantee you it will be significantly higher than any normal place. Ask yourself why this is? There are a number of reasons but a big one is that many charities are simply vanity projects for bored housewives and daughters of rich men. (points at united way) Even if they do some good it is a highly diluted version of what it should be. The purpose is not aligned.
If you really are a good person and not simply patting yourself on the back for the feel goods of dropping a $20 in the charity box. I encourage you to take a much deeper look into what charities really are and how much good they actually do. Maybe you just got lucky and got involved with a serious charity at one point in your life but they are not in the bigger picture as magnanimous on a whole. FYI you are probably not going to find real answers on the internet. Charities are acutely are aware of that public face.
Hmm, should I help a human being or spend all my money writing blog posts on why AI will kill us all? Okay, sure, maybe you want to give to a substack for AI alignment people whose sole output is voluminous reams of content on why AGI is around the corner and a harbinger of doom, but I think this may not be everyone's jam.
However, for those who prefer the utilitarian mindset, a friend built https://cosmicbraintrust.org/ so that you can donate to a more worthy cause - an aleph_1 to AI alignment's aleph_0.
I'm no better. I donate to charity, but I still feel best about myself for times I helped people change a flat, etc.