Blog

Stay up to date with Giving What We Can's blog. Featuring the latest news about our community, how to donate effectively, charity evaluation, community events and more!

Giving What We Can's blog, featuring the latest news from our community.

Donate

Pledge

footerNavigation

About us

Contact us

Our team

Our values

Our members

Our events

Transparency

Our mistakes

Our impact

Donate to Giving What We Can

Careers

Leave feedback or make a complaint

About

Our best charities

Take a giving pledge

Get involved

Make a bequest

Videos, books, podcasts

FAQs

Learn more

Press kit

Media coverage

Case studies: People who pledge to give

Media

Footer Navigation

DONATE

topNavigation

Best charities

High-impact causes

Why give to funds

How much to donate

Why donate publicly

Recommendations

Our research & approach

Comparing charities

Evaluating evaluators

Our approach

Giving guides

Videos, books, podcasts and essays

Hesitations about charitable giving

How rich am I?

Can money buy happiness?

Resources

Research

About Us

Our Governance Structure

Team

Newsletter

Podcast

Videos

Take the Pledge

Connect with our community

Share our ideas

Events

Giving games

Charity elections

Pledge drive

Fundraisers

Social Shareable Images

Community

What is the Pledge?

Why pledge instead of just donating?

Share the Pledge (inspire others!)

Pledge signers

My Pledge

🔹Trial Pledge

Company Pledge

Further Pledge

Bequests

Have a 1-on-1 call about pledging

Donate now

Manage my donations

Tax deductibility

Top Navigation

Floris Wolswijk

Birthdays happen every year, but this year it was different. I turned 30 and decided to do something unconventional. Instead of gifts, I asked my friends and family to contribute to the fight against malaria. It turned out to be the most satisfying birthday, so far.

I Dedicated My Birthday to the Against Malaria Foundation

For the past six years, I've been involved in the effective altruism community as an organizer of a local group in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Since 2015 I've been a Giving What We Can member and have donated 10% of my income to effective charities with the hopes of improving the world.

By organizing our local group, I have encouraged others to donate to effective charities and deepened my understanding of effective altruism. But I could only get my friends to join an event now and then, and struggled to engage them more deeply with "

" Then it struck me: what if I dedicated my birthday to a highly recommended charity --- the 

 (AMF)? Would that be a way to encourage my friends to donate?

My birthday proved to be a highly effective avenue for getting my friends involved. One week before my birthday, I started contacting friends. The message I sent highlighted the work being done by AMF and the impact that even a small contribution would have. Of course, my messages also genuinely asked how my friends were doing. This was not only a fundraiser, it was a way for me to connect to close friends and acquaintances whom I hadn't spoken to in a while.

Nearly everyone I contacted responded to my messages, and more than 70% donated to AMF! I offered to match each donation and the total amount raised was a mighty $2,875.

 was that some of my friends really surprised me. One friend, whom I didn't see regularly and who had recently started as a junior doctor, made a $300 donation. And more than one friend asked me how to not only make a donation but how to make it a recurring one.

The birthday fundraiser was the best thing I have tried to encourage friends and family to donate. I think running a birthday fundraiser is also something you can do. If you're inspired, you can find some guidance on Giving What We Can's "

" page. The page even includes a tool to set a birthday reminder!

Next year, I will be doing another fundraiser for an effective charity. I might make it even more exciting by adding a challenge (for instance, I could run a mile for each donation). And --- who knows? --- maybe it will be an even more awesome birthday than the last one.

Andrew Leeke

Surbhi Bharadwaj

Shouldn't we address human suffering before working to reduce animal suffering?

 about charity. Taking time to learn the facts will help prevent the spread of misinformation and inspire more people to use their resources effectively to improve the world.

Is it wrong to focus on animal welfare when humans are suffering?

" This question carries an implicit assumption that many of us believe: nonhuman animals are not as worthy of moral consideration as humans.

Upon consideration, however, it's difficult to justify the assumption that humans are more worthy of moral consideration than animals. Animals have inner lives and the capacity to suffer, just like humans do. If we want to make the world a better place, we should try to reduce suffering --- regardless of who is experiencing it. Moreover, alleviating human suffering and alleviating animal suffering are not mutually exclusive. We can do both!

Many humans love and value nonhuman animals. 

 that interacting with nonhuman animals (at home, at petting zoos, or even in an aquarium) can lower anxiety and stress. It can even lower heart rate and blood pressure. Though 

, more than half of U.S. households include at least one companion animal. One study 

 that dog owners feel as emotionally close to their dogs as they do to their closest family members.

Yet, while we love the animals we interact with daily, many people --- perhaps the majority of the planet --- live lifestyles and maintain diets that harm animals around the globe. It seems that many of us carry an implicit assumption that, while they're loveable, nonhuman animals are not worthy of the same level of moral consideration as humans. 

 even believe that animals do not deserve moral consideration at all. In other words, while humans have certain moral obligations to each other (e.g., we have an obligation not to harm each other), some believe that we have no such obligations to nonhuman animals. This belief is convenient, as it allows us to justify common lifestyle and dietary choices that cause suffering to 

Upon reflection, it's quite difficult to justify the belief that humans deserve moral consideration and animals do not. Our treatment of animals cannot be justified by the simple fact that animals are a different species from us. Philosopher Peter Singer likens discrimination based on species membership to discrimination based on race, gender, or any other feature of identity:

"[T]he racist violates the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of his own race, when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of another race. Similarly the speciesist allows the interests of his own species to override the greater interests of members of other species. The pattern is the same in each case."

Humans and nonhuman animals all have inner lives and the capacity to suffer. It's true that humans and animals differ in many ways, and it is difficult for us to know the degree to which the suffering of one species resembles the suffering of another. Still, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that nonhuman animals suffer a great deal, whether in factory farms or in the wild. Each year, 

, and countless animals suffer disease, hunger, and predation 

The scale of animal suffering is so large that the opportunity to have a positive impact by advocating for animals is enormous. Effectively advocating for the welfare of nonhuman animals remains a highly cost-effective way to do good in the world.

We don’t have to choose between helping humans and helping animals.

Luckily, we don't need to choose between helping only humans and helping only animals. The two are intimately linked. For instance, in addition to the suffering they cause, factory farms 

. We need not complete one project (ending all human suffering) before beginning another (addressing animal suffering). After all, it's not clear that ending human suffering will ever be "complete."

There are many effective organisations working on animal welfare. See our 

 of like-minded people who are working to make the world a better place.

Greg Gianopoulos

Giving What We Can is happy to announce that we are able to sponsor up to 20 schools who apply to run a charity election in 2021! This post contains basic information about the program, including the perspectives of past participants. 

Giving What We Can is Sponsoring 2021 Charity Elections

Giving What We Can is happy to announce that we are able to sponsor up to 20 schools who apply to run a charity election in 2021! This post contains basic information about the program, including the perspectives of past participants. To learn more, view our 

, positive psychologist Emily Esfahani Smith writes about the power each one of us has to build and lead meaningful lives. This power is the basic idea motivating the charity election program, a school-wide event in which high schoolers vote among three charities to decide which will receive up to $2,000 in sponsored funds.

Charity Election Program: Student Perspectives

As a student-led program, charity elections are organised by student leaders, and only students are eligible to vote. Each vote results in an additional $2 donation, and student leaders receive service leadership certificates and create a memorable and meaningful voting and learning experience for their school community. The Balcatta Senior High School student leaders published an 

 about their event, and the EXPLO at Yale student leaders created an Instagram 

. Selected quotes from students participating in past events are listed below.

For an overview of the program and a link to the sponsorship application, please see our 

Thanks for reading about the program! Feel free to contact us at 

 if you'd like more information or are interested in running an event.

Giving What We Can is happy to announce that we are able to sponsor up to 20 schools who apply to run a charity election in 2021! This post contains basic information about the program, including the perspectives of past participants.

GWWC Team

Critics of philanthropic solutions to poverty sometimes argue that economic growth is the only sure path to lifting people out of poverty. However, without effective philanthropic efforts to reduce poverty and eradicate disease, economic growth is neither fast enough nor adequate to avert millions of preventable deaths.

Shouldn’t we just focus on economic growth to lift people out of poverty?

This article is part of a series addressing 

Critics of philanthropic efforts to reduce poverty sometimes argue that economic growth is the only sure path to ending extreme poverty. However, without effective philanthropic efforts to reduce poverty and eradicate disease, economic growth is neither fast enough nor adequate to avert the 

Some critics of charity argue that the solution to poverty is economic growth. They believe that, instead of working to address poverty through charity, we should focus on growing the economy. It is true that economic growth, particularly in 

, has substantially contributed to reducing poverty in recent years. However, China may be an outlier. Even under very optimistic growth projections, it would take 

 to eventually lift everyone on earth out of extreme poverty through economic development. In the meantime, billions of people will needlessly continue to suffer and millions will die each year.

A key reason why it would take a long time to eradicate poverty through economic growth is that, put simply, most of the world is very poor. As 

, "The huge majority of the world lives in countries where the majority is poor." More precisely, "77% of the world population live in countries in which more than 90% live on less than $30 per day." If we want to reduce global poverty to the level of poverty in a wealthy country like Denmark, Roser argues, we will have to increase the global economy by about 

 Moreover, even if economic growth is an effective way to reduce poverty, we currently lack evidence-based interventions to achieve it. For now, it may be best to support research in this area.

Luckily, we don't have to choose between economic growth and humanitarian aid. We can support policies to encourage economic growth in low-income countries and concurrently support communities through aid and philanthropy.

Moreover, many highly effective charities conduct work that has significant economic benefits in addition to their humanitarian impact. For example, the 

 distributes highly effective long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) to prevent malaria in countries 

. There's some evidence that such interventions can have 

 for the countries in which they're employed by reducing the incidence of malaria, tuberculosis, and other preventable diseases. Empowering people in these countries by improving their health increases their ability to contribute to their local economies.

You can support economic empowerment throughout the world by donating to the Centre for Effective Altruism's 

By giving to effective charities, we can make a positive impact in low- and middle-income countries. Make a 

Common Concerns About Donating to Charity

Toni Adleberg

As individuals, we are not able to help everyone in need and so we must make difficult decisions about where we use our resources. One way of making such a decision might be to favour people who live locally. After all, there’s no shortage of people — even in the wealthiest countries — who need and deserve our help. We may be especially well-placed to attend to the needs of those near to us. Yet, while there may be some benefits to making local donations, it is in general vastly more cost-effective to support interventions in low-income countries.

Charity begins at home; shouldn't we solve our own problems before helping others?

As individuals, we are not able to help everyone in need and so we must make difficult decisions about where we use our resources. One way of making such a decision might be to favour people who live locally. After all, there’s no shortage of people --- even in the wealthiest countries --- who need and deserve our help. We may be especially well-placed to attend to the needs of those near to us. Yet, while there may be some benefits to making local donations, it is in general vastly more cost-effective to support interventions in low-income countries.

The proverb "charity begins at home" is often mistaken for scripture. The Bible 

 the importance of helping those nearest to us: "Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

The phrase "charity begins at home" was popularised in the 17th century by Thomas Fuller, a British clergyman and historian. However, Fuller's meaning is often 

 today. He didn't mean that we should only help those near to us. His 

" (emphasis added). In other words, we should nurture a sense of compassion and generosity in our relationships with those around us, but we should then work to extend that compassion and generosity to the rest of the world.

Helping those near to us and helping those who are far away are not mutually exclusive. We can do both; it's just a matter of striking the right balance. We've not found that balance yet. For example, according to the 2023 

 report, only 6% of American donations went to international affairs organisations in 2022. This is consistent with cross-cultural research on generosity. A 

 conducted in Germany and China found that subjects in both countries were willing to forego greater sums of money to help those nearer to them than those farther away.

Figure 1. Subjects' generosity decreases as social distance increases.

In some cases, giving within your home country might make sense. If you live in a low- or middle-income country, there might be highly impactful giving opportunities in your community that you are well-suited to identify (see our 

). If you live in a high-income country like the U.S., it might make sense to give domestically depending on which cause you are interested in supporting. For example, if you are interested in advancing climate policy, it makes sense to work in a country where some of the largest corporations are located.

Most of the time however, if you live in a middle- or high-income country, you can maximise the impact of your dollar by sending it to a lower-income country. For $619, you can increase 

 in the U.S. by about 1%. For $547, you can 

 the income of a household in Kenya. In fact, for each dollar spent, those who live in wealthy countries can expect to do at least one hundred times more good for those in low-income countries than they could for themselves. Giving What We Can Co-Founder William MacAskill 

Charity might start at home, but it has a much greater impact when extended around the world.

You can direct your giving overseas by donating to one of our many 

that work internationally. You can also donate to EA Funds' 

, which aims to improve people's lives in the poorest regions of the world.

Achim Fischbach is an MBA student, a libertarian, and an effective altruist. He recently took the Giving What We Can Pledge.

Member Profile: Achim Fischbach

Achim Fischbach is currently pursuing an MBA in Munich, Germany. First, he studied computer science in the armed forces. During this time, he experienced a shift in worldview.

"A colleague of mine said to me once that I had too much free time for thinking during my studies, which is true, because I became a libertarian during this time."

Achim's growing commitment to libertarian principles eventually led him to leave the military due as a conscientious objector. After leaving the military, he worked as an IT specialist and studied philosophy. He explains, "I am curious about all kinds of philosophical, social, and political topics, and always eager to learn more."

In addition to leading him away from the military, Achim's interest in libertarianism sparked his interest in 

. He first learned about the movement at a 

 conference he organised in Germany. Achim didn't immediately join the movement, but the core ideas impressed him. Recently, Achim listened to Sam Harris' conversation with Will MacAskill, 

. The conversation persuaded him to take the 

Reflecting on the causes he's most passionate about, Achim says: "I am deeply interested in human liberty and dignity, and, to an extent, in the development of liberal institutions that work toward peace, prosperity, and a good life for people around the world." Achim does not find it particularly difficult to give. Instead, he is grateful for what he has.

"I know that I am very lucky and well-situated [...]. Because I am thankful, and because I know I did not earn my good fortune, I want to help others, too."

After finishing his MBA, Achim plans to resume his support of the Network for Constitutional Economics and Social Philosophy. He also plans to dedicate some time to writing articles, doing translations, and other activities.

" series which profiles a selection of the Giving What We Can community. The Giving What We Can is a community of people from all walks of life, with different perspectives and motivations for giving – all united by their desire to make a significant commitment to use their income to effectively helping others. Read more 

 to help inspire others to give more, and more effectively.

For more information about Giving What We Can we recommend you check out our 

People in the effective altruism movement often support organisations doing direct work with easily measurable outcomes. After all, effective altruists try to make evidence-based decisions whenever possible, and it's difficult to find evidence supporting interventions with very indirect, long-term, and/or abstract consequences. This has led to the misconception that people in the effective altruism movement only care about short-term, measurable change. In fact, many effective altruists care about outcomes that are harder to measure and are supportive of working towards systemic change.

Do effective altruists only value short-term, measurable outcomes?

People in the effective altruism movement often support organisations doing direct work with easily measurable outcomes. After all, effective altruists try to make evidence-based decisions whenever possible, and it's difficult to find evidence supporting interventions with very indirect, long-term, and/or abstract consequences. This has led to the misconception that people in the effective altruism movement only care about short-term, measurable change. In fact, many effective altruists care about outcomes that are harder to measure and are supportive of working towards 

 of effective altruism have pointed out that effective altruists are particularly susceptible to a bias towards measurable outcomes. Because effective altruists rely on evidence to figure out how to best help others, they are often drawn towards interventions that produce a quantifiable or measurable impact.

However, while it may be easiest to study and promote measurable change, effective altruists value other kinds of change as well. On the 80,000 Hours blog, 

 that effective altruists love systemic change.

Organisations within the effective altruism movement work across a range of cause areas and rely on a wide variety of evidence --- both quantitative and qualitative --- to make inferences about the potential impact of interventions. There are many 

 working towards systemic change. For instance:

 studies global catastrophic risks, like human-caused climate change and threats from artificial intelligence. These risks and the impact of potential interventions can't be measured through randomised controlled trials, so FHI relies on a 

 engages in legal and legislative advocacy to support climate-friendly policy change.

The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security

 works with policymakers to prepare for threats to public health.

 works with political leaders across the world to improve global nuclear policy.

 distributes "Movement Grants" to support organisations doing more speculative or long-term work.

, in addition to developing and promoting alternatives to animal products, is working to secure fair policy and public funding for research to develop a more sustainable global food system.

You can help support systemic, long-term change by donating to one of these or many other 