Monetary donations are not the only means of contributing. Happiness and status are two completely different regimes. Philanthropy is not an end unto itself.
The sited data sources clearly indicate that money does not “buy happiness.” What money can buy is subsistence. I have found the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism to be a succinct answer to the interelation between material acquisition and happiness. The expectations of the individual lead to feelings of wealth or deprivation.
I believe it was Wikinomics that stated that charities, when they want money, are best to first ask for your time. People are far more likely to give away money than an amount of time in which they spent earning that same amount. One might argue that charities have more need of money than any particular individual’s skills, but in most cases I doubt that to be true.
There was surprisingly inspiring episode of Behind the Music where the artist-perhaps-currently-known-as-Prince stated the path to success was not to pursue a high paying career but instead to figure out how you could best serve the people around you and make that your life’s work; that way you would always have the fulfillment of working towards a goal you hold to be important. He combined this with a citation of the number of hours to become proficient in a given field, I believe he suggested 10000 hours.
By volunteering instead of donating you place yourself in a community that values what you do. Even as the greenest recruit your status is raised above that of the visitor who drops a few dollars in a bucket within the community you have chosen to participate in. And from an evolutionary fitness perspective you are more likely to help someone who shares more of your genes because they are local to you.
“One might argue that charities have more need of money than any particular individual’s skills, but in most cases I doubt that to be true.”
If you mean what I think you mean by “particular individual”, I strongly disagree. You seem to be saying:
“For any given person X and charity Y, it’s more probable that Y would benefit from X’s skillset and time than from an equivalent amount of their money.”
However, most people do not have skills which are especially useful to charities, particularly international development-related charities. Furthermore, merely having strong and applicable technical skills is not enough; charities often operate in environments where cultural infrastructure is very weak, so an effective volunteer also needs to have strong people skills, and an ability to adapt and work effectively despite culture shock.
Actually I meant that most skills would be of use to some charity, not a particular charity. Certainly there are some skills that are not of value to any charity I would support.
To further clarify, I am considering charity to mean non-profit enterprises whose purpose is to benefit more than their own contributors.
Too many courses on population models have led me to believe that resource availability has to climb a steeper curve than population growth for sustainability. I am not certain that short term support for individuals living in inadequate conditions is a net positive. Cultural standards particularly regarding family size are difficult to alter. I choose to apply my efforts to a different set of problems.
Monetary donations are not the only means of contributing. Happiness and status are two completely different regimes. Philanthropy is not an end unto itself.
The sited data sources clearly indicate that money does not “buy happiness.” What money can buy is subsistence. I have found the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism to be a succinct answer to the interelation between material acquisition and happiness. The expectations of the individual lead to feelings of wealth or deprivation.
I believe it was Wikinomics that stated that charities, when they want money, are best to first ask for your time. People are far more likely to give away money than an amount of time in which they spent earning that same amount. One might argue that charities have more need of money than any particular individual’s skills, but in most cases I doubt that to be true.
There was surprisingly inspiring episode of Behind the Music where the artist-perhaps-currently-known-as-Prince stated the path to success was not to pursue a high paying career but instead to figure out how you could best serve the people around you and make that your life’s work; that way you would always have the fulfillment of working towards a goal you hold to be important. He combined this with a citation of the number of hours to become proficient in a given field, I believe he suggested 10000 hours.
By volunteering instead of donating you place yourself in a community that values what you do. Even as the greenest recruit your status is raised above that of the visitor who drops a few dollars in a bucket within the community you have chosen to participate in. And from an evolutionary fitness perspective you are more likely to help someone who shares more of your genes because they are local to you.
“One might argue that charities have more need of money than any particular individual’s skills, but in most cases I doubt that to be true.”
If you mean what I think you mean by “particular individual”, I strongly disagree. You seem to be saying:
“For any given person X and charity Y, it’s more probable that Y would benefit from X’s skillset and time than from an equivalent amount of their money.”
However, most people do not have skills which are especially useful to charities, particularly international development-related charities. Furthermore, merely having strong and applicable technical skills is not enough; charities often operate in environments where cultural infrastructure is very weak, so an effective volunteer also needs to have strong people skills, and an ability to adapt and work effectively despite culture shock.
Actually I meant that most skills would be of use to some charity, not a particular charity. Certainly there are some skills that are not of value to any charity I would support.
To further clarify, I am considering charity to mean non-profit enterprises whose purpose is to benefit more than their own contributors.
Too many courses on population models have led me to believe that resource availability has to climb a steeper curve than population growth for sustainability. I am not certain that short term support for individuals living in inadequate conditions is a net positive. Cultural standards particularly regarding family size are difficult to alter. I choose to apply my efforts to a different set of problems.