What’s the assumption? You just told me that you’re planning on donating to a Canadian charity, and that it’s because Canada still has problems. I suppose I assumed that you’re only donating to one country. If not, there are further problems with your donation habits.
Based on the phrase “change which charities I donate to” I had assumed he or she was already donating to multiple charities, presumably including action in subsaharan africa.
Also can you explain the “magnitude” thing? I’m not sure I follow your definition of “effectiveness”.
Based on the phrase “change which charities I donate to” I had assumed he or she was already donating to multiple charities, presumably including action in subsaharan africa.
The money being donated to charities that are not in Sub-Saharan Africa would be better donated to charities that are. Even if that were not the case, that would just mean that the money that is donated to charities that are in Sub-Saharan Africa would be better donated to charities that are not. The money from a single donor isn’t enough to change which continent you should donate to.
Also can you explain the “magnitude” thing?
An order of magnitude is a power of ten.
I’m not sure I follow your definition of “effectiveness”.
Here’s an example of what I mean.
The Seeing Eye trains dogs to help mitigate the effects of blindness for about $50,000 each. The Fred Hollows Foundation performs cataract surgeries to cure blindness for about 25$ each. It’s not generally clear how to relate how much good two different charities are, but it is pretty obvious that a cataract surgery does more good than a guide dog, and for 2,000 times less. Thus, the Fred Hollows Foundation is more than three orders of magnitude more cost-effective than The Seeing Eye. Even if The Seeing Eye was tax-free and the Fred Hollows Foundation was taxed at 99.9%, it would be worth while to donate to The Seeing Eye.
I’m not sure if you are trying to be sardonic, but I wanted to know where you get the idea that some charities are actually orders of magnitude more effective. It sounds completely fabricated to enforce your point.
How is that relevant? Does Alice being blind for another reason make it less important for Bob to be able to see?
If you cured everyone with cataracts, and all of the other cheap stuff, then it might be worth while to do something more expensive. But this is only because doing something cheap is no longer an option.
What’s the assumption? You just told me that you’re planning on donating to a Canadian charity, and that it’s because Canada still has problems. I suppose I assumed that you’re only donating to one country. If not, there are further problems with your donation habits.
Again, weak simplification of things I didn’t even say.
I was trying to guess what you meant. Can you just tell me? What was I assuming, and in what way was it false?
Based on the phrase “change which charities I donate to” I had assumed he or she was already donating to multiple charities, presumably including action in subsaharan africa.
Also can you explain the “magnitude” thing? I’m not sure I follow your definition of “effectiveness”.
The money being donated to charities that are not in Sub-Saharan Africa would be better donated to charities that are. Even if that were not the case, that would just mean that the money that is donated to charities that are in Sub-Saharan Africa would be better donated to charities that are not. The money from a single donor isn’t enough to change which continent you should donate to.
An order of magnitude is a power of ten.
Here’s an example of what I mean.
The Seeing Eye trains dogs to help mitigate the effects of blindness for about $50,000 each. The Fred Hollows Foundation performs cataract surgeries to cure blindness for about 25$ each. It’s not generally clear how to relate how much good two different charities are, but it is pretty obvious that a cataract surgery does more good than a guide dog, and for 2,000 times less. Thus, the Fred Hollows Foundation is more than three orders of magnitude more cost-effective than The Seeing Eye. Even if The Seeing Eye was tax-free and the Fred Hollows Foundation was taxed at 99.9%, it would be worth while to donate to The Seeing Eye.
I’m not sure if you are trying to be sardonic, but I wanted to know where you get the idea that some charities are actually orders of magnitude more effective. It sounds completely fabricated to enforce your point.
I get that it’s just an example, but cataracts are far from the only source of blindness
How is that relevant? Does Alice being blind for another reason make it less important for Bob to be able to see?
If you cured everyone with cataracts, and all of the other cheap stuff, then it might be worth while to do something more expensive. But this is only because doing something cheap is no longer an option.