7 ms·

Consider joining Giving What We Can - an international community of people who have pledged to give at least 10% of their income to causes that they think are m

by yboris 5y ago

Consider joining Giving What We Can - an international community of people who have pledged to give at least 10% of their income to causes that they think are most effective at eliminating what they think are the world's biggest problems. (I'm a proud member for 10 years). https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/ https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/

funOtter 5y ago
I'm interested: why join this when you can simply donate 10% to charities without joining this?
- Kranar 5y ago
  Sense of community. I used to have the belief that being an anonymous donor, giving money to charities quietly, was the right and noble thing to do. Then there was the Ice Bucket Challenge and I realized that an individual donation is nothing compared to the multiplying effect that comes from having others within your community and network join in, and that requires finding creative ways of signaling your donations to others. Some find it distasteful to signal this, but the problem is that the end result of signaling donations is so much more effective that it's worth it. Joining a community of people who also pledge to participate in charity and promote charities to one another could be a way to eliminate the distasteful part of signaling to others that you donate to charities. It can also work as a way to integrate charities and donations as a routine part of your expenses and budgeting.
  - 0des 5y ago
    giving as a group activity feels weird as if without an audience these folks might just not be interested.
    - nearbuy 5y ago
      If true, then that's exactly what makes it good. We can save lives for the small cost of giving donors some recognition and a sense of community. Edit: To add the above, the median annual donation amount for someone earning $60k-$80k in 2010 was $107. Roughly 0.15% of their income. It feels weird to criticize people donating 10% for having not-pure-enough motives while letting the majority who donate almost nothing escape criticism.
      - 0des 5y ago
        Performative altruism, so hot right now. I used to have this old book by this guy Matthew something or other that talked about good deeds being done for the purposes of being seen. Might have to revisit that one again, personally.
        nearbuy 5y ago
        I kind of wish you'd stop shaming people for donating to effective charities. What if these comments discourage someone from donating?
        MisterSandman 5y ago
        Performang Altruism is still Altruism.
spywaregorilla 5y ago
This seems like a really funny name for the org. Some people can give a whole lot more than 10%. Others cannot give nearly that much. Seems... contrary to the idea of "what you can"
- zamadatix 5y ago
  Note the 10% was a minimum not a prescription. As for the "cannot give nearly that much" they don't believe everyone should pledge to give money. The FAQ is actually very cautious about who should do it https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/about-us/frequently-asked-questions/#48-should-everyone-pledge https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/about-us/frequently-asked-qu...
probably_wrong 5y ago
I like the first half of the idea (donating 10% of one's income) but I feel strongly against their definition of "effective" and "biggest problems". This typically happens when someone multiplies a tiny probability by an infinite value like "time till the heath death of the universe". In particular, their top four recommended charities are managed by "Effective altruism funds", with the 3rd best-ranked charity spending money to prevent "potential risks from advanced artificial intelligence" which I strongly consider a waste of money. Of course, everyone's values are different. I'd just encourage people to take 5 minutes and choose their own charities instead of blindly choosing their suggestions.
- pkd 5y ago
  It's not always that random (not saying it couldn't be). GiveWell, the best known research outfit, publishes their process: https://www.givewell.org/how-we-work/process https://www.givewell.org/how-we-work/process Peter Singer (who also runs The Life You Can Save), has lots of thoughts about why one should go with "effective" altruism instead of always donating to your local charity, and I would say they are worth listening to.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  > which I strongly consider a waste of money Do you consider all research on AI ethics and bias to be a waste of money? The EA folks are doing some of the best work in that field, and have been focusing on it for quite a while. People used to consider biosecurity and pandemic preparedness a waste of money too, but hopefully we know better.
  - handoflixue 5y ago
    > pandemic preparedness There's a big difference between a threat that has existed for all of human history (pandemics), and a completely novel threat model that might exist in the future (AI)
  - probably_wrong 5y ago
    No, I do think research on AI ethics is important and necessary. But I also think there's a time and a place, and "third most pressing issue for humanity" is not it. Biased AI algorithms are a problem for the 10% of countries where AI is part of their daily decision process. For the other 90%, "I don't have enough nutrients for my brain to develop" and "I'm severely disabled due to a preventable but unprofitable illness" are much more pressing issues. I support basic research, even in areas whose economic benefit may not be clear. But if someone asks "how can I help humanity the most?", I consider "AI research" to be a really bad answer, to the point of being almost a lie.
einpoklum 5y ago
Does it count if you work part-time for pay, and write FOSS the rest of your time? I mean, you're contributing over 10% of your potential-employment time instead of over 10% of the higher salary of a full-timer.
- handoflixue 5y ago
  Per https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/pledge/ https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/pledge/: "Our pledges are in no way legally binding. They are commitments made voluntarily and enforced solely by your own conscience." "Our pledges do not restrict you to give to registered charities, specific organisations, or organisations working in a particular cause area. The only requirement is that you give to the organisations which you sincerely believe to be among the most effective at improving the lives of others." --- So, if you think you genuinely believe working in FOSS results in a better world than pulling in a paycheck and donating to charity, I'd say: yes, absolutely? It's certainly not the default expectation, mind you. I think you'd probably get less out of the community since they focus in a different direction. But if you still see value in being part of the pledge, I'd definitely encourage you to take the leap and count that FOSS work :)

by yboris 5y ago

funOtter 5y ago

I'm interested: why join this when you can simply donate 10% to charities without joining this?

Kranar 5y ago
Sense of community. I used to have the belief that being an anonymous donor, giving money to charities quietly, was the right and noble thing to do. Then there was the Ice Bucket Challenge and I realized that an individual donation is nothing compared to the multiplying effect that comes from having others within your community and network join in, and that requires finding creative ways of signaling your donations to others. Some find it distasteful to signal this, but the problem is that the end result of signaling donations is so much more effective that it's worth it. Joining a community of people who also pledge to participate in charity and promote charities to one another could be a way to eliminate the distasteful part of signaling to others that you donate to charities. It can also work as a way to integrate charities and donations as a routine part of your expenses and budgeting.
- 0des 5y ago
  giving as a group activity feels weird as if without an audience these folks might just not be interested.
  - nearbuy 5y ago
    If true, then that's exactly what makes it good. We can save lives for the small cost of giving donors some recognition and a sense of community. Edit: To add the above, the median annual donation amount for someone earning $60k-$80k in 2010 was $107. Roughly 0.15% of their income. It feels weird to criticize people donating 10% for having not-pure-enough motives while letting the majority who donate almost nothing escape criticism.
    - 0des 5y ago
      Performative altruism, so hot right now. I used to have this old book by this guy Matthew something or other that talked about good deeds being done for the purposes of being seen. Might have to revisit that one again, personally.
      - nearbuy 5y ago
        I kind of wish you'd stop shaming people for donating to effective charities. What if these comments discourage someone from donating?
      - MisterSandman 5y ago
        Performang Altruism is still Altruism.

spywaregorilla 5y ago

This seems like a really funny name for the org. Some people can give a whole lot more than 10%. Others cannot give nearly that much. Seems... contrary to the idea of "what you can"

zamadatix 5y ago
Note the 10% was a minimum not a prescription. As for the "cannot give nearly that much" they don't believe everyone should pledge to give money. The FAQ is actually very cautious about who should do it https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/about-us/frequently-asked-questions/#48-should-everyone-pledge https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/about-us/frequently-asked-qu...

probably_wrong 5y ago

I like the first half of the idea (donating 10% of one's income) but I feel strongly against their definition of "effective" and "biggest problems". This typically happens when someone multiplies a tiny probability by an infinite value like "time till the heath death of the universe". In particular, their top four recommended charities are managed by "Effective altruism funds", with the 3rd best-ranked charity spending money to prevent "potential risks from advanced artificial intelligence" which I strongly consider a waste of money. Of course, everyone's values are different. I'd just encourage people to take 5 minutes and choose their own charities instead of blindly choosing their suggestions.

pkd 5y ago
It's not always that random (not saying it couldn't be). GiveWell, the best known research outfit, publishes their process: https://www.givewell.org/how-we-work/process https://www.givewell.org/how-we-work/process Peter Singer (who also runs The Life You Can Save), has lots of thoughts about why one should go with "effective" altruism instead of always donating to your local charity, and I would say they are worth listening to.
zozbot234 5y ago
> which I strongly consider a waste of money Do you consider all research on AI ethics and bias to be a waste of money? The EA folks are doing some of the best work in that field, and have been focusing on it for quite a while. People used to consider biosecurity and pandemic preparedness a waste of money too, but hopefully we know better.
- handoflixue 5y ago
  > pandemic preparedness There's a big difference between a threat that has existed for all of human history (pandemics), and a completely novel threat model that might exist in the future (AI)
- probably_wrong 5y ago
  No, I do think research on AI ethics is important and necessary. But I also think there's a time and a place, and "third most pressing issue for humanity" is not it. Biased AI algorithms are a problem for the 10% of countries where AI is part of their daily decision process. For the other 90%, "I don't have enough nutrients for my brain to develop" and "I'm severely disabled due to a preventable but unprofitable illness" are much more pressing issues. I support basic research, even in areas whose economic benefit may not be clear. But if someone asks "how can I help humanity the most?", I consider "AI research" to be a really bad answer, to the point of being almost a lie.

einpoklum 5y ago

Does it count if you work part-time for pay, and write FOSS the rest of your time? I mean, you're contributing over 10% of your potential-employment time instead of over 10% of the higher salary of a full-timer.

handoflixue 5y ago
Per https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/pledge/ https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/pledge/: "Our pledges are in no way legally binding. They are commitments made voluntarily and enforced solely by your own conscience." "Our pledges do not restrict you to give to registered charities, specific organisations, or organisations working in a particular cause area. The only requirement is that you give to the organisations which you sincerely believe to be among the most effective at improving the lives of others." --- So, if you think you genuinely believe working in FOSS results in a better world than pulling in a paycheck and donating to charity, I'd say: yes, absolutely? It's certainly not the default expectation, mind you. I think you'd probably get less out of the community since they focus in a different direction. But if you still see value in being part of the pledge, I'd definitely encourage you to take the leap and count that FOSS work :)