4 ms·

I think the answer is both maybe we don't need one to the exception of the other. Send them money for food but also help them build a railway, shopping mall or

I think the answer is both maybe we don't need one to the exception of the other. Send them money for food but also help them build a railway, shopping mall or water infrastructure. What we would do from our perspective might not be the same thing that we would do in their perspective. But obviously we have a perspective of what they need. How we can help them. Do people suddenly rise up and decide to build water infrastructure or electrical grid or proper housing for everyone in a town? Takes extreme funding to do both. Would they be willing to listen to what we tell them what to do?

skybrian 4y ago
I agree with that. However, some things might be easier to fund with charitable donations than others. For example, the reason GiveWell doesn't recommend donating for vaccination campaigns isn't because they don't think vaccinations are cost-effective (they are) but because giant organizations like governments and the WHO are funding these things already. It's not a "neglected" cause so it's hard to move the needle by donating there. I suspect that hard infrastructure like railways are funded by loans from the IMF and maybe foreign aid? I don't know if GiveWell has evaluated that sort of thing specifically. GiveWell's mission is advising individual donors on which charities they should give money to, which means charities that exist, take donations, are trustworthy, can show effectiveness, and so on. It's not things people could theoretically fund; it has to be practical.
- samsquire 4y ago
  I worry that the amount of money these countries needs is more than what charitable people can afford and the amount of time, skill and work that is needed. The sheer amounts of investment needed are extremely high. What took the western world 100s of years needs to be invested (time and work) over many years to bring up these places to the level of the west.

skybrian 4y ago

I agree with that. However, some things might be easier to fund with charitable donations than others. For example, the reason GiveWell doesn't recommend donating for vaccination campaigns isn't because they don't think vaccinations are cost-effective (they are) but because giant organizations like governments and the WHO are funding these things already. It's not a "neglected" cause so it's hard to move the needle by donating there. I suspect that hard infrastructure like railways are funded by loans from the IMF and maybe foreign aid? I don't know if GiveWell has evaluated that sort of thing specifically. GiveWell's mission is advising individual donors on which charities they should give money to, which means charities that exist, take donations, are trustworthy, can show effectiveness, and so on. It's not things people could theoretically fund; it has to be practical.

samsquire 4y ago
I worry that the amount of money these countries needs is more than what charitable people can afford and the amount of time, skill and work that is needed. The sheer amounts of investment needed are extremely high. What took the western world 100s of years needs to be invested (time and work) over many years to bring up these places to the level of the west.