What a provoking article—excellent! It’s healthy for us to be asking these questions.
But I wonder about the dualistic nature of the questions posed in your ‘how to guide’. Sometimes, in fact often, it is not a simple choice between two. Biodiversity, like culture, is much more complex than a graph can depict. The multiple layers move at different rhythms & speed and are instructed by differing motivations such as hormone, instinct, sex, survival, power, empathy (to name only a few).
My point is that systemic change is not a matter of choosing between the best charity—that approach only has one outcome which is how many lives to save in one monetary act—if we look at the world in a connected web than demonstrating empathy & care by looking after one’s place (cleaning up the local beach) or protecting a rainforest for the future health of the planet—these are all responsibilities with different impacts that contribute to a greater whole. Helping a rainforest now may save millions of lives in the future compared to 10 lives treated for malaria now. And this is not just about humans! I don’t think you can measure what you are trying to measure—it denies the complexity of life and reduces it to an economic plan.
Yes you can look at a ‘how to guide’ if you want to find the best charity and you do make great examples of how to make that decision—but sustaining life and survival is much deeper, chaotic and unknown.
What a provoking article—excellent! It’s healthy for us to be asking these questions.
But I wonder about the dualistic nature of the questions posed in your ‘how to guide’. Sometimes, in fact often, it is not a simple choice between two. Biodiversity, like culture, is much more complex than a graph can depict. The multiple layers move at different rhythms & speed and are instructed by differing motivations such as hormone, instinct, sex, survival, power, empathy (to name only a few).
My point is that systemic change is not a matter of choosing between the best charity—that approach only has one outcome which is how many lives to save in one monetary act—if we look at the world in a connected web than demonstrating empathy & care by looking after one’s place (cleaning up the local beach) or protecting a rainforest for the future health of the planet—these are all responsibilities with different impacts that contribute to a greater whole. Helping a rainforest now may save millions of lives in the future compared to 10 lives treated for malaria now. And this is not just about humans! I don’t think you can measure what you are trying to measure—it denies the complexity of life and reduces it to an economic plan.
Yes you can look at a ‘how to guide’ if you want to find the best charity and you do make great examples of how to make that decision—but sustaining life and survival is much deeper, chaotic and unknown.