This is very true. I just want to point out one under-appreciated side effect of hands-on altruisim: it does often change the person for the better. It's often

This is very true. I just want to point out one under-appreciated side effect of hands-on altruisim: it does often change the person for the better. It's often better to give money, and there's no better way to see how little you can do with your hands vs how much you can do with a dollar than to go and see it yourself. Even raising awareness about the problems with a visceral experience of being there can make a person more prone to donate money, advocate for causes, and be contemplative in their policy choices. But, money is not a sure-fire solution. Even when donating money, this is a cognitive barrier that must be overcome. In major philanthropic work, a huge problem is matching the donor's expepectations of targetted "This person saved 1000 people" investments vs a "general fund" investment to, say, a global vaccine initiative. There's no traceability when you dump your dollars into a pool to buy a billion vaccines, but there is enormous positive impact. Contrast that with, say, building a well in a village (something that is usually poorly done, poorly maintained, and not very helpful compared with a municipal water project or sanitation education program). But the well has immediate impact that can be photographed and they probably got their name etched into it. These aren't made up examples, I've heard these stories from policy / fund raisers. They just shake their head and agree that the world is slightly better, even if it could have been even more slightly better.