Télécharger l’application
93.57% Random Stuff *_* / Chapter 335: Efficient Charity: Do Unto Others[3]

Chapitre 335: Efficient Charity: Do Unto Others[3]

Deciding which charity is the best is hard. It may be straightforward to say that one form of antimalarial therapy is more effective than another. But how do both compare to financing medical research that might or might not develop a "magic bullet" cure for malaria? Or financing development of a new kind of supercomputer that might speed up all medical research? There is no easy answer, but the question has to be asked.

What about just comparing charities on overhead costs, the one easy-to-find statistic that's universally applicable across all organizations? This solution is simple, elegant, and wrong. High overhead costs are only one possible failure mode for a charity. Consider again the Arctic explorer, trying to decide between a $200 parka and a $200 digital camera. Perhaps a parka only cost $100 to make and the manufacturer takes $100 profit, but the camera cost $200 to make and the manufacturer is selling it at cost. This speaks in favor of the moral qualities of the camera manufacturer, but given the choice the explorer should still buy the parka. The camera does something useless very efficiently, the parka does something vital inefficiently. A parka sold at cost would be best, but in its absence the explorer shouldn't hesitate to choose the the parka over the camera. The same applies to charity. An antimalarial net charity that saves one life per $500 with 50% overhead is better than an antidiarrheal drug charity that saves one life per $5000 with 0% overhead: $10,000 donated to the high-overhead charity will save ten lives; $10,000 to the lower-overhead will only save two. Here the right answer is to donate to the antimalarial charity while encouraging it to find ways to lower its overhead. In any case, examining the financial practices of a charity is helpful but not enough to answer the "which is the best charity?" question.

Just as there is only one best charity, there is only one best way to donate to that charity. Whether you volunteer versus donate money versus raise awareness is your own choice, but that choice has consequences. If a high-powered lawyer who makes $1,000 an hour chooses to take an hour off to help clean up litter on the beach, he's wasted the opportunity to work overtime that day, make $1,000, donate to a charity that will hire a hundred poor people for $10/hour to clean up litter, and end up with a hundred times more litter removed. If he went to the beach because he wanted the sunlight and the fresh air and the warm feeling of personally contributing to something, that's fine. If he actually wanted to help people by beautifying the beach, he's chosen an objectively wrong way to go about it. And if he wanted to help people, period, he's chosen a very wrong way to go about it, since that $1,000 could save two people from malaria. Unless the litter he removed is really worth more than two people's lives to him, he's erring even according to his own value system.


next chapter
Load failed, please RETRY

État de l’alimentation hebdomadaire

Rank -- Classement Power Stone
Stone -- Power stone

Chapitres de déverrouillage par lots

Table des matières

Options d'affichage

Arrière-plan

Police

Taille

Commentaires sur les chapitres

Écrire un avis État de lecture: C335
Échec de la publication. Veuillez réessayer
  • Qualité de l’écriture
  • Stabilité des mises à jour
  • Développement de l’histoire
  • Conception des personnages
  • Contexte du monde

Le score total 0.0

Avis posté avec succès ! Lire plus d’avis
Votez avec Power Stone
Rank NO.-- Classement de puissance
Stone -- Pierre de Pouvoir
signaler du contenu inapproprié
Astuce d’erreur

Signaler un abus

Commentaires de paragraphe

Connectez-vous