Not all giving is equal.
I was walking through the park the other day on my way home from the tailor. Proudly, I strutted with my chest out, wearing a brand-new suit and a pair of the finest shoes I’ve ever owned. Passers-by glanced at me with envy and I nodded in return, knowingly. The cost of my new outfit was more than two weeks’ salary, but it was worth it for my daughter’s wedding that afternoon.
Rounding a corner in an isolated area of the park I came upon a shallow pool of dirty water from a recent flood. In the middle was a small child, alone, lying in the mud, struggling to get out. She was choking, drowning. I stood paralyzed, not knowing what to do. Nobody else was around, and the poor child would surely die within moments. The only way to save her life was to dash into the muddy water and soil my precious new clothes.
Should I save the child?
Saving lives
This fictional story is paraphrased from a famous thought experiment presented by philosopher Peter Singer. Universally, the answer to “Should I?” is a resounding “Yes, of course you should, you moron, hurry up!” (that’s paraphrased too)
“How can I live a good life and be a good person?”
(the universal question of morality)
The hidden lesson is that right now we are all in the exact same position I was, but may not realize it. Tens of thousands die every single day in the metaphorical pool, while potential saviors stand by, paralyzed, conflicted. People can be saved — easily — if we’re willing to accept a small inconvenience.
Searching
I’m recently retired, and like many retirees, am looking for ways to give back. Fate has been kind to me throughout most of my life, and while my wife and I wouldn’t be considered “rich,” we live a comfortable life. We’re willing to embrace the “small inconvenience,” as quoted above.
But what will we do?
We donate to a variety of charities right now, mostly here and there when opportunities arise. You probably do too. When your kids’ school needs money for textbooks, the library needs repair, your church needs help, there’s a local emergency, food drives, a hungry child. We’re all good people — we step up when we see a need.
But I want to do more. I want to find a cause and a charity that directly improves the lives of others. One that literally saves human lives.
Heal thyself
They say helping others improves our own lives too. What we gain from simple acts of kindness vastly outweighs the effort and inconvenience of giving.
Imagine I did save that little girl. My new suit would need cleaning, my shoes would be ruined, I’d be shoddily dressed and embarrassed at my daughter’s formal wedding — BUT — the memory of saving that child would live with me forever. It would probably be the most consequential act I’ve ever done in my life. My entire future would be changed by this simple act, and I’d carry it to my grave with immense personal pride.
Saving a life is a profoundly transformational event. It reduces depression, builds self-esteem, improves confidence — and helps others in more ways than we can imagine. Helping two, ten, or a hundred would be even better. Imagine the feeling of dramatically improving the lives of hundreds of people. It is within the reach of people like you and me, people of modest means willing to accept a small inconvenience.
Not all giving is equal
To many of us, charities are mysterious creatures, shrouded in secrecy, battling the forces of evil with urgent calls for our recurring financial reinforcements. They claim to be solving the problems of mankind, but are they really? And are they good at it, or just good at marketing?
Well, it depends. Some are great and some are not. Some charities are 1000 times more effective than others.
- I can buy a box of scout cookies, or cure blindness in a child. The $5 cost is the same.
- I can donate to an organization that studies rare diseases or buy mosquito nets that can eradicate malaria.
- I can spend $30,000 to train a guide dog for a blind man or provide life-saving vaccinations to enhance the lives of 638 people.
The measurement of success isn’t how much money one gives, it’s how many lives it improves per dollar spent.
This statement is the premise of the effective altruism movement, inspired in a large part by Peter Singer, the philosopher behind the child in the pond story above. This movement was founded on the premise that giving can be predicated on evidence and reasoning. If all giving were to be efficient, they claim, it would deliver the greatest good to the greatest number of people.
All suffering is equal, it’s not race- or geographically-based. Sure, we’re deeply moved by issues that we can see, touch, and smell. And they’re important, of course. But are they the most important? When we open our eyes and see all the tragedy and suffering in the world, we may find that our efforts can be more efficient in places we can’t see.
Effective giving
GiveWell is an effective altruism organization that calculates the life-saving and life-improving value per dollar donated. Nine charities — objectively the most effective — have risen to the top. Giving to these charities, they contend, will more improve lives more effectively than any other method.
GiveWell is “The gold standard for giving”
The Boston Globe
You can donate to the GiveWell organization which will direct your funds to the charities of your choice. Or, you can go directly to the charities themselves. Here are the nine most effective charities, as listed on GiveWell:
Malaria prevention and eradication
- Malaria Consortium: Medications to prevent infections, tests and treatments for related illnesses, and extensive analysis of its own program effectiveness.
- Against Malaria Foundation: Bednets that kill mosquitos, preventing malaria infections. Enough $5 bednets and malaria can be eradicated.
Health and nutrition
- Helen Keller International: High impact vitamin A supplement program to protect and improve vision, health, and nutrition. 200,000 children die from vitamin A deficiency each year. One dose costs $1.
- New Incentives: Cash payments incentivize caregivers to bring babies to clinics for routine childhood vaccinations. Detailed studies confirm this approach has significant compliance and effectiveness.
Deworming and neglected tropical diseases to cure avoidable blindness and suffering:
These four charities provide treatments for devastating parasitic worm infections that lead to blindness and incapacitation. Parasitic worms are easily treated with a couple of dozen applications of an inexpensive $1 medication. Children are saved from life-long dependency and given the opportunity to lead more productive lives within their community.
Cash to alleviate extreme poverty
- GiveDirectly: Donating cash grants to very poor families lifts them out of abject poverty, into a more able and productive state where they can be self-sustaining. This charity regularly conducts high-quality program evaluations.
Here’s how I’m giving
Donating is typically an act done in secret. Our culture believes there’s a sense of virtue in giving anonymously.
Hogwash! There’s more virtue in inspiring others to give. When we see others’ generosity, we can step up in unity with them. One of the tenets of effective altruism is transparency. It’s uncomfortable, but it’s right.
In that spirit, I’m sharing my commitment.
First, I won’t stop buying groceries for hungry children each week. I’ll still buy Girl Scout Cookies because Tagalongs and Thin Mints are the best cookies ever made and at least some of that money goes to a good cause. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation because they bring information to the world free of charge. I’ll still support my neighbors, community, and family, but to a lesser degree so I can redirect some of it to more efficient charities.
I’ve set up a recurring donation to GiveWell for about 50% of what I’m making right now with my writing. Since I’m retired, my modest writing income is icing on the cake.
It’s a small inconvenience but I’m saving lives and improving living conditions for quite a few people. I may never meet them, but I know my money is doing good in the most efficient way possible.
I guess I can now say that “lives depend on my writing.”
What will you say?
Agreed, Bob. We need to apply similar measurements and transparency of those results to our government programs so we can evaluate them and vote accordingly. Good thoughts.
I fully agree with the premise that not all giving provides equal benefits. We should choose our charities wisely. I feel that the same principles apply to government spending. There are a lot of well-intentioned legislators out there advocating for good causes, but some causes are more worthy than others. Taxpayers can’t be burdened to support all of them. Voicing our opposing opinions or voting against something doesn’t mean we are uncaring – it might simply mean that we see higher needs that should be prioritized.