New releases

Some facts about charity are so useful that they just have to be shared. Here’s one from the website of Giving What We Can:

‘It is not even a matter of some charities being 10 or 100 times as effective: even restricted to the field of health programs in developing countries, research shows that some are up to 10,000 times as effective as others.’ [1]
By reading this, most of us will have gained some motivation to give effectively, and this will deliver years of healthy life to those in need of charity.

Just as we’re grateful to Giving What We Can for this help, it’s natural to wonder what we can do to nudge others towards cost-effective philanthropy.

Treating NTDs is one of the most cost-effective ways to improve people’s lives. So if news stories were ordered by its actual effect on human welfare, this announcement would have adorned the front of all major newspapers.

Sadly not, but it can at least adorn this blog: pharmaceutical titans including GSK and Merck are teaming up with the World Bank and the WHO to try and eliminate some of the worst NTDs. See the full announcement for more info…

(no further text)

When we think about how to make a difference in our careers, it is natural to think about what we can do directly. We think about the children we could build schools for, the homeless person we could help, what campaigns we might take part in, and so on.

But what we do directly is not the only thing that matters. We also need to think about what would have happened if we hadn’t acted – which is called a counterfactual…

Givewell and Giving What We Can have both recently updated their charity recommendations.

As a response I’ve updated the ‘Best causes‘ post, with a few extra thoughts thrown into the mix.

(end of post)

Just a quick note:

In case you missed it in Sam’s post on Health vs Education, some members of Giving What We Can have put together a charities Wiki.

It goes into a bit more detail than the main GWWC website on various charities and the issues associated with them. It’s still in its infancy, but like any Wiki is both a resource and an opportunity for interested researchers to help out.

(no further text)

80,000 Hours founder Will Crouch appeared with Private Eye editor Ian Hislop on BBC Radio 4’s The
Today Show. The interview opens with Will explaining the logic behind 80,000 Hours’ “Banker vs. Aid Worker”
campaign: namely, that a professional philanthropist, or someone who enters a lucrative career with
the intention of giving much of it away, can fund the work of several aid workers, and as such can do
several times as much good.

If you’re reading this, I’ll assume you’re convinced by the philosophy of 80,000 Hours – so you won’t find an argument for that philosophy here. This post is just to help you decide where to best give your money right now, based on the combined recommendations of the above organisations allowing for a couple of factors they don’t address.

So… plenty of organisations want your money, but a select few really stand out. What’s the best option?

“I prefer to give to local organizations.” I’ve heard this a lot.

Imagine a high school student who sits down to study for exams. Her chemistry
book is lying closest to her on the desk, so she decides to study chemistry.
Her father points out that since she has an A in chemistry and a D in geometry,
studying geometry might help her grades more. “But that book is all the way
over there in my backpack,” the student points out; “I prefer to study
locally.”