4 ms·
> I never give to charity because it always seems so abstract, or there might be better ways to solve the problem It can be difficult to know whether or not yo
by tyrust 10y ago
> I never give to charity because it always seems so abstract, or there might be better ways to solve the problem
It can be difficult to know whether or not you are making an impact with a donation. Fortunately there are sites like Charity Navigator [0] that audit aggregate and audit charities to make things easier. Some sites (like Giving What We Can [1] and GiveWell [2]) make it even simpler by suggesting a few charities that they deem most effective.
For example, one of these top charities is the Against Malaria Foundation [3]. They're a fairly straightforward charity: they receive and review requests for mosquito nets and fulfill orders with donations. When you donate they tell you exactly how many nets were bought with your donation and where they were sent. In this way your dollars (approximately) directly help prevent the spread of malaria. Now, could this problem be better solved with donations to a malaria vaccine research group? Perhaps. For the time being, mitigating the issue with nets seems like a decent interim solution.
My point is that there are many, many charities out there doing great work. It's worth looking into.
(Another note: I don't mean to imply that you shouldn't give to open source projects. I am just trying to say that you could also consider giving to traditional charities.)
[0] - http://www.charitynavigator.org/ http://www.charitynavigator.org/
[1] - https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/top-charities/ https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/top-charities/
[2] - http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities
[3] - https://www.againstmalaria.com/ https://www.againstmalaria.com/
- tomjen3 10y agoMy problem with that is that they mitigate the issue, they don't end it. As great as against malaria is, there will always be another family that needs nets, no matter how much you donate it will never be enough. One a feature has been added to an open source software, it is available to all those who need it.
- sambe 10y agoThe bigger issue for me is that they have such limited resources they can only investigate a tiny fraction of charities. If you have a personal interest in a certain area or want to find global optima the net is not cast wide enough. Very glad they exist though, could help raise standards everywhere.
- rfrey 10y agoI get your point but that comes across as very callous to me, valuing a feature in software that benefits a small fraction of the most prosperous people in already-prosperous countries over the health of a family. Consider reframing it: With a small donation you solve the problem for a family (where the problem is the risk that their children will die!), and you can solve it over and over just by repeating the action - it's the definition of scalability. You won't have to keep adding different colors of net to make that family safe. But there's always another software feature to be added, the job is never done - and when you add a feature it's only for the one package! If you want to do it again you have to start from scratch. Also, when you consider improvements in your projects, you no doubt consider both cost and impact. Compare the impact of the feature-add your donation might make in an open-source project, to the impact saving one or more family's lives.