Alana Horowitz Friedman

Jacob Bauer

Author of Effective Altruism: An Introduction explains how writing his book motivated him to commit 10% of his income to high-impact charities.

From ideals to impact: Jacob Bauer on how writing his book changed his approach to giving

“After a decade of teaching, the book's research reaffirmed a truth I already understood: ten percent of my modest income can do immense good in the world, when directed toward high-impact charities. What was I waiting for?” - Jacob Bauer, author of 

It’s not uncommon for a powerful book to make a big impact on someone’s life. But it’s especially notable when that book is your own.

Such was the case for Jacob Bauer, who has known about the principles of effective altruism for over a decade, and even teaches them to his philosophy students. Yet it wasn’t until he was in the thick of writing his book — 

 — that he moved from belief to action.

“Reflecting on the long-term scale of human history helped put my own finances in perspective. My own financial struggles or concerns about job security seemed trivial compared to the life-threatening uncertainties faced daily by those in extreme poverty,” wrote Jacob when I asked him if he would mind sharing what finally pushed him over the line. “While I’ve known this for a while, reading through the current research for the book and conveying these incredible figures to others just really hit home.”

You can read Jacob’s full giving story below. We’re also very excited to read 

, which officially launches worldwide on February 11th, 2025, but which is available in the UK and international markets now. (The eBook is already available worldwide!)

My giving story: Why I pledged to donate 10% to high-impact charities

In brief, my two main reasons for taking Giving What We Can’s 10% pledge are: 

1) the realization that I am one of the most privileged people ever to be born, and 

2) that I can use that privilege to make a positive difference in the lives of the most underprivileged people in the world.

Although I have long held these beliefs, it was through researching and writing my book 

 that I moved from belief to action. In this article, I share my “giving story” and how teaching, research, and writing eventually led me to take the 10% Pledge.

My desire to give was sparked nearly 20 years ago during my first year of college when I read Mahatma Gandhi’s autobiography. This led me to research Gandhi’s broader philosophy of nonviolence. Gandhi believed that nonviolence was an active virtue, requiring care for all individuals and, as a result, living a life of service. Raised in a privileged family in India, Gandhi was sent to London to train as a lawyer. Later, after witnessing extreme poverty and social injustices, he renounced his wealth and redirected his resources to aid his community and fight for social change. Gandhi believed that this was a moral responsibility, given the world we live in.

Gandhi advocated for two striking principles: non-stealing and non-possession. Non-stealing asserts that we should not take more than we need, as surplus resources belong to those who lack them; it is “theft if one receives anything which one does not really need.” Non-possession builds on this, holding that as long as others are deprived of the basic necessities of life, it is wrong to keep unnecessary possessions; one should “not possess anything which one does not really need.” Gandhi’s commitment to these principles led him to live in voluntary poverty, dying with only a handful of possessions.

While I agreed with Gandhi in theory, I found it difficult, to say the least, to live up to his high standards. As a college student with a negative net income, I saved spare change to donate to local charities but felt dissatisfied with my impact.

After graduating, I began teaching philosophy as an adjunct professor at multiple colleges. These part-time positions paid low wages (by U.S. standards). I had been teaching about utilitarianism and Peter Singer’s arguments for giving, when I discovered Singer’s 2013 TED Talk, 

. Singer’s arguments about our moral obligation to give were broadly aligned with Gandhi’s views, albeit from a different moral framework — Singer argues that since we can prevent terrible things from happening by giving away our money, we ought to do so. This TED talk introduced me to the wider movement of Effective Altruism — a project dedicated to using evidence and reason to identify the most effective ways to help others.

So alongside teaching Singer’s arguments, I began introducing students to effective altruism. Students often highlighted these lectures as transformative, prompting them to reconsider their potential impact on the world. Occasionally, I would be asked if I donated to charity. I’d answer honestly: I wanted to give more but, at the time, I was earning poverty-level wages and supporting a family. Nonetheless, I hoped to give more in the future.

In Fall 2019, I secured a full-time teaching position with better pay and was thrilled at the prospect of finally building some financial stability. That sense of security, however, was short-lived. Just a few months later, the COVID-19 pandemic brought widespread uncertainty and massive disruptions across industries, including higher education. Although I was fortunate to keep my position, it was unclear at the time whether I would still have a job in the following academic year.

It was during this turbulent time that I read Singer’s book, 

. These books helped me realize that, despite my financial struggles by U.S. standards, my position was far better than that of most people globally.

Hundreds of millions of people are in extreme poverty, living on less than $800 per year (adjusted for purchasing power parity). Through no fault of their own, millions of families lack access to the basic necessities that I routinely take for granted.

At the end of Singer’s book, I was surprised by his updated, more modest giving recommendations. In many of his earlier writings, Singer argued that we should give away

 all extra income that would otherwise be spent on luxuries

 (a position similar to Gandhi’s). However, he later recognized that setting such a high bar might deter people from engaging with the idea of high-impact giving altogether.

To address this, Singer now advocates for a more realistic and attainable starting point. He proposes a giving scale that starts at donating 1% of income to high-impact charities, with higher percentages for higher income brackets (capping at 50% of income above $53 million). This modest giving scale was “designed to have a barely noticeable impact on your standard of living — and a life-saving impact on those in extreme poverty.”

Singer’s giving scale helped me realize that I could give more systematically without imposing any meaningful hardship on myself or my family. My concerns about job security were overshadowed by the life-threatening uncertainties faced daily by those in extreme poverty. I began donating between 1-2% of my income each month to the Against Malaria Foundation (consistently ranked as one of the highest-impact charities by GiveWell). I viewed this as a starting point and planned to increase this percentage over time. I also took 

, which is based on Singer’s giving scale. (For anyone interested in a similar commitment, 

 is another great option — one I wish I had also taken at the time, in hindsight.)

A turning point: writing about effective altruism

My teaching eventually led to a book contract to write an introduction to effective altruism. As a faculty member with high course loads, this project required essentially working two full-time jobs — I would have to work nights, weekends, and holidays. Despite the challenges, I was eager to take on the project, as I had seen — through the interest of my students — how the principles of effective altruism could make a difference in people’s lives.

Throughout most of 2023 and early 2024, I researched and wrote 

. A large portion of the book involved transforming my lectures on effective altruism into book chapters while updating the arguments and data to the most recent available research.

As I carefully evaluated and reconstructed the arguments for giving during this time, I reflected on my own ability to give more to high-impact charities. Writing Chapter 2, "Global Poverty: You CAN Make a Difference," helped crystallize the reality that my modest income by USA standards represents immense wealth from the perspective of most of the world. Writing Chapter 6 on longtermism not only deepened my appreciation of our long-term potential but also helped me reflect on my place in long-term human history. Not only am I one of the most fortunate people alive today, I am, by far, one of the most fortunate people to ever live. Of the over 100 billion humans born during our 200-300 thousand-year history, almost all lived in utter hardship compared to my own, with 

nearly half dying before reaching adulthood

This helped contextualise my own financial situation. Any struggles I had or worried about simply paled in comparison to the resource struggles that almost all humans had faced up to this point. While writing the book, I also read through some of the current research on how much good our donations can do when directed to high-impact charities. “A donation to The Fred Hollows Foundation of as little as $50 can cure a person of blindness. Protecting an individual from iodine deficiency, which can lead to terrible health effects such as brain damage, costs as little as $0.10 per year through the Iodine Global Network. Expanding deworming programs costs around $0.50 per treatment and expanding access to safe drinking water costs around $1.50 per person per year through the charity Evidence Action.” (Chapter 2). After a decade of teaching, the book's research reaffirmed a truth I already understood: ten percent of my modest income can do immense good in the world, when directed toward high-impact charities. What was I waiting for?

In late 2023, amidst writing my book, I increased my donations to 10% of my income. In early 2024, I finally committed; I took 

, joining a community of thousands of others who pledged before me. Most of my donations now go to 

, including Giving What We Can’s Global Health and Wellbeing Fund, the Effective Animal Advocacy Fund, the Risks and Resilience Fund, and the Giving Green Grantmaking Fund.

Ironically, just months after taking the Pledge, my university announced plans to downsize, with my position among those at risk.

In light of this, do I regret taking the 10% Pledge? Not in the slightest. Even if I lose my job, I remain far more privileged than most people who have ever lived. I am grateful to contribute to improving lives and hope my modest contributions help build a better future. And even though it took me years to do it, I still view the 10% Pledge as a starting point. I hope to continue increasing my giving in the future, and I hope to inspire others to think deeply about the many ways they can make a positive difference in the world. But most importantly, I hope my story helps inspire others to not just think….

, especially if they already resonate with the ideas and principles behind effective giving.

From ideals to impact: Jacob Bauer on how writing his book changed his approach to giving 

Are direct work and effective giving two tools in the same impact toolbox? Here are some ways to think about the relationship, as well as some thoughts from people who do both.

Beyond the dichotomy:  Perspectives on direct work and effective giving

TL;DR

Introduction & context: why am I writing this? 

I’ve noticed that thinking about high-impact careers and giving effectively is often presented as an either/or choice. For example, taking a giving pledge is often mentioned as a way to have an impact if you 

 have a high-impact career, and “I’m doing direct work” is a common reason people don’t take the 10% Pledge.

Yet I’ve spoken with many people (including the entire staff at Giving What We Can) who don’t see high-impact work and high-impact donations as mutually exclusive, but rather as two different tools in one broad “improve the world” toolbox. A handful of our staff – in addition to earning a much lower salary than they plausibly could in the private sector 

 salary sacrifice large portions of their salary back to Giving What We Can.

On the flipside, I’ve spoken with others who believe direct work is so much more impactful that it doesn’t matter too much whether you choose to donate on top of that, and that – if you do take a direct role that’s significantly lower paying than you would if impact weren’t a factor – you could consider that an implicit donation.

While I’m sympathetic to the rationale that taking a 

 lower paying role than you could have otherwise is a form of donating, I have some qualms about using this as a conversation stopper. (I’m not sure whether this is, in fact, used that way; however, it’s plausible to me that such a rationale could prevent further self-reflection around whether you 

 reasonably afford to also donate and if so, whether this is something that you think is worthwhile.)

Put another way: in a recent ad campaign, we used the slogan “You don’t have to do everything but you should probably do something.” And I agree with this. However, I don’t believe this sentiment equates to: “I’ve done something so I don’t have to consider doing anything else.” The latter, to me, misses out on the point behind all forms of improving the world – it’s not about checking a “moral sufficiency” box, it’s about the impact. And if I can increase this impact at little (extra) cost to myself, this (to me) 

I also think that pledging even if you already do direct work (provided your salary allows you to) is a nice way to push back on a misconception that seems to be floating around outside of the EA community – that pledging is either a way to write-off harm you may be doing in other areas of your life, such as through a career that enforces systems of oppression, or a way to check off “moral sufficiency” the other way around – “I’m donating so I don’t have to do anything else.”

I had a quite frustrating online exchange with Massimo Pigliucci about this, who seemed to think that EA’s approach to charity would stop people from advocating (in other ways) for system change. While there’s a lot more to say in response to that concern, one clear case study in opposition is the number of pledgers who are also doing direct work.

Again, this isn’t to say that everyone needs to do both. We have to be realistic about what we reasonably can or want to do, and it’s okay to draw the line somewhere. But I do think there are other ways (besides a perceived dichotomy) to think about the relationship between direct work and giving that are worth considering. In this post, I’m going to:

-Lay out a few rough thoughts for ways to think about this relationship

-Highlight the stories and experiences of a few pledgers who are also doing direct work

Rough thoughts about the relationship of effective giving and direct work

Effective giving as another tool in a broader impact toolbox

. For example, Nina Friedrich of High Impact Professionals told me: “At HIP, we consider donations as one of three paths to an impactful career: skills, donations, network. People can focus on just one approach or follow a ‘portfolio approach’, where different aspects are combined."

Considering the salary of your direct work in isolation, rather than comparing it to “what you could have made elsewhere”.

 A lot of direct work is still really high paying, especially when you consider where your income puts you 

. Additionally, it could be risky to base decisions too heavily on “could haves”

Effective giving as a way to contribute to areas that you may care about but that are outside the scope of your work.

 For example, perhaps you've dedicated your career to working on AI safety but also still care about problems in global health that are leading to needless suffering mostly because of a funding gap

Effective giving as a way of supporting other people to further 

 -- for example, supporting orgs that are doing direct work in a different cause area or funding research that someone like you may do as part of their career. One pledge motivation from someone referred by 80,000 Hours read: “I believe that there are great people working for great causes, but they rarely end up with enough money even though we have plenty of resources to go around.”

Effective giving (depending on where you choose to donate) as an “impact insurance policy”

 that might make you more likely to take well-reasoned bets in your career – things that could have extremely high payoff but come with some uncertainty/risk. Many believe the best opportunities come with some risk/uncertainty of impact, so being confident you are also having concrete impact in other ways (such as through your donations) could make you more likely to take these positions, leading to greater impact all around.

Effective giving as a way to encourage and inspire others (who may not be as well-suited to direct work) to make a difference.

 By giving yourself, you set an example for others to follow.

While not specifically related to donating while doing direct work, there’s some reason to think effective giving could also help people have an impactful career later—in that it encourages people to take impact more seriously, become more informed, etc.


Thoughts from Pledgers who also do direct work

I interviewed Kayla Fishman (GiveDirectly), Neel Nanda (Google DeepMind), Milena Canzler (EA Germany) and Lorenzo Buonanno (Giving What We Can) to hear how they think about direct work and giving. Before we get to some excerpts from these interviews, I’ll let each person introduce themselves:

image in line with text

<img src="https://cdn.sanity.io/images/4rsg7ofo/production/a493e3d6f21581386b5b86a90cfd130e97e57724-1221x1038.jpg" align="left" style="margin:10px 20px 10px 10px; max-width:300px; height:auto;">
 Hey, I’m Neel! I work on AGI Safety at Google DeepMind, where I run our mechanistic interpretability team.



 Mechanistic interpretability is the study of what happens inside neural networks — what kinds of algorithms and structure have they learned, and how can we reverse engineer it?



 I’ve been interested in effective altruism and rationality since at least 2014. In 2020, I finished a maths undergrad at Cambridge, where I was fairly involved in the EA society there. After graduating, I decided I was compelled enough by the arguments for existential risk from AI to at least explore working on it, and after trying out various AI Safety internships, discovered that mech interp was a great fit for my skills and tastes.

<img src="https://cdn.sanity.io/images/4rsg7ofo/production/ead55358c8baaf86d9aa660dadec3cfc94c9a3a7-2651x3976.jpg" align="left" style="margin:10px 20px 10px 10px; max-width:300px; height:auto;">
 Hi, I’m Milena! I've been working for EA Germany (EA Community Building and Talent Support) since 2022. We work on supporting motivated people on finding their path towards impact, growing the EA community here, and reaching the general public with EA ideas.



 I have a background in Biology, with a diverse portfolio of interests during my studies (neuroscience, genetics, ecology, science communication). During my studies, I always hoped I’d stumble upon the one thing that excites me. At some point, I realized that’s very unlikely to happen – I’m too interested in too many things! After finishing my degree in the Netherlands, I worked odd jobs and lived in Australia for a few years. I always felt a pull towards doing something useful for society during my life, but never felt able to connect the dots until I learned about EA 4 years ago, during the pandemic.



 Effective giving was an eye-opener for me, and I vowed that I'd start donating at least 10% of my income once I landed a job again. When that happened, it was a no-brainer for me to redirect a small amount of more money than I’d ever earned before (not that much for German standards, but more than student allowance or café wages). I also started co-organizing my local EA group and visiting EA events. When some friends encouraged me to apply for my current job, I gave it a go -- and luckily succeeded!

<img src="https://cdn.sanity.io/images/4rsg7ofo/production/c7142be94c031524b9e2fc4faa170991ffd1cca0-480x480.png" align="left" style="margin:10px 20px 10px 10px; max-width:300px; height:auto;">
 Hello! I’m Lorenzo and I have been writing software at Giving What We Can since May 2023.



 I finished my Computer Science degree in Pisa (Italy) in 2020, and a few months later moved to the Netherlands (higher-paying jobs) to work as a Software Developer for a digital mental health platform.



 I’ve always donated most of my income, as I believe it can benefit others much more than myself. Initially I was giving to Doctors Without Borders, but soon switched to GiveWell’s top charities as I believed they could help more people.



 In December 2021 I had €10,000 left to donate. I was very unsure on how to allocate it, so I donated it to a donor lottery for a ≈2.26% chance of having the right to recommend how to direct $0.5M.



 After surprisingly winning the lottery, I spent a lot of time thinking about how I could do more good, and in late 2022 decided to quit my job and move back to Italy to do part-time community building while working part time as a remote contractor for a startup to pay the bills.



 I wasn’t able to achieve much as a community builder, so after ~6 months I gave up and applied to a bunch of impactful orgs where I thought I could be a good fit. I was extremely lucky that Giving What We Can was hiring for a software developer role at that time, and so far I really like my job here!

“I’m not sure where I first heard about it - if you’re involved enough in EA, it’s pretty hard to miss! As for why I took it, I think that the logical arguments that the good I can do with the money far outweighs the marginal utility to me, and 10% seemed a decent balance between zero altruism and maximum self-sacrifice.”

“For the ~2 years between hearing about GWWC and starting my job at GD, I was steadily increasing my giving to GD and other effective causes but wasn’t anywhere near 10%. It wasn’t until after I started at GD and saw firsthand how massive a difference my donations could be making in the lives’ of others that I really ramped up my donations.”

"I’ve been giving what I can since I started working, without stressing too much about it. Currently, this averages at about ~40% of my income, but this year it will likely be closer to ~35%. I’m very fortunate to have no health issues and no dependents. I don’t have children, and my parents and sister have full time jobs and can easily support themselves, so I feel free to spend money on whatever I think is most valuable. Also, knowing that I can always scale back my charitable giving in case of unexpected expenses serves as a buffer – I wouldn’t have to dip into savings or take on debt – so I feel financially safe."

On the relationship of direct work and giving

“I like the added "safety" of also donating a part of my income, to make sure that I don't only create impact via my work, as I'm working a step removed from actual impact. I also think it's great to set an example by taking a pledge as someone who's working for an EA organisation.”

“Quite honestly, I think that the impact of my work significantly outweighs the good I can do by donating…I see deciding where to give as a fun side hobby, and am sometimes a bit stressed when I don’t have enough time for donation planning, but it’s definitely lower priority than my work. In general, I think that the impact of someone’s direct work will significantly outweigh their giving (or that their direct work may not be too effective and they should consider doing something else!) I also personally think that, when someone’s direct work pays significantly less than what they’d be doing if they cared less about altruism, they should consider that salary gap to be an implicit donation. In my personal case, AI lab salaries are unreasonably high and this doesn’t really matter.”

“I feel privileged to have so much exposure to the impact of my giving through my work, and it definitely motivates me to fulfill my Pledge and be a part of the effective giving community.”

“I don’t think that the fact that I’m paid to do work that I believe is valuable changes much in terms of how much I want to give. If anything, I think it would feel a bit weird to ask others to give more without giving something myself.”

“It’s definitely made me more of an evangelist for both direct work and effective giving - which has probably also made me more insufferable to the people in my life that care less about those things!”

“I have a good salary. Donating a portion of it provides value for me.”

Alana has a background in teaching, writing, and culinary arts. She holds a BA in Comparative LIterature from Oberlin College and an MS in Education from Fordham University. Alana is passionate about effective giving, climate justice, adult literacy, and immigration justice. Before joining Giving What We Can as a Research Communicator, she was a professional writing consultant at Stevens Institute of Technology and taught Business Communication at the University of Massachusetts. 

Alana is a Research Communicator at Giving What We Can. She is passionate about increasing the reach of core effective giving concepts. 

Alana Horowitz Friedman

About

Articles

From ideals to impact: Jacob Bauer on how writing his book changed his approach to giving

Beyond the dichotomy: Perspectives on direct work and effective giving