Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by Sebastian Schwiecker
2 min read 1

63

CommunityEffective givingEffektiv-Spenden.orgGiving What We Can
Frontpage
This is a linkpost for https://www.effektiv-spenden.org/blog/rutger-bregman-on-effective-giving/

Rutger Bregman, historian, and author (including Utopia for Realists and Humankind: A Hopeful History) describes his personal view on philanthropy in a conversation with Effektiv Spenden here (German here).

In the Effektiv Spenden post donation survey he was mentioned more than any other person (e.g. more than Will MacAskill and more than Peter Singer). Our explanation is that he particularly good at reaching people from outside the existing EA community.

Some quotes:

On effective altruism:

"Sometimes people can get the impression that “Oh, so you know what all the effective causes out there are and you are very dogmatic about that?” That’s not the case at all. Effective altruism is a question. It’s not an answer. It’s all about continuously asking yourself the question, is this the best use of my time, resources, and money? That’s what it’s really about. And I think intellectual humility is a really important value, and I think that’s also quite present in the movement."

On systemic change vs. individual change:

"There’s now this discussion going on amongst progressives and people on the left like: “Oh, we shouldn’t talk about individual change because that’s neo-liberal. We should all talk about system change”, but obviously we need to do both. If you look at the most impressive reformers and prophets and campaigners and activists throughout history, they all did it both. I’m now reading a book about Anthony Benezet who was one of the most important abolitionists, he’s called the father of abolitionism. He led the fight against the slave trade and slavery in the 18th century. If you would have said to him: “Oh, it’s all about the system. It’s not about the individual”. He would have said: “You’re a hypocrite.” Of course, it’s also about the individual, because he knew that he would be much more convincing if he actually did what he preached."

On why he signed the Giving What We Can Pledge:

"Because human behavior is contagious. We’re not individuals, we’re not lone atoms, but we influence each other all the time by our behavior. It’s just contagious. Giving can be like that as well. That’s why I think it’s important to be public about your giving, not to show off, you need to be a little bit careful there, but that’s also why I signed the Giving What We Can pledge to say. Look, people, if you like my work, this is what I find really important and it has made a big difference in my life to donate at least 10% of my income to highly effective causes. I think that actually, as a best seller author, you can go a little bit higher than 10%, but 10% is a good place to start."

Since the interview is quite long feel free to share the video below with everyone who might be interested but can't be bothered for more than one minute.

                                           

63

0
0
1

Reactions

0
0
1
Mentioned in

More posts like this

Comments1


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Luke Freeman 🔸3
2
0

Such a great interview – well done! And go Rutger, what an amazing human!

Reply
More from Sebastian Schwiecker
View more
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Recent opportunities in Community
40
Feedback requested: Financial Independence Purpose Planner tool
Rebecca Herbst
· · 5m read
2
2
7
EAGxNordics in Norway: apply now
Amalie Farestvedt 🔸
· · 3m read
0
0
16
Sign up for a seminar on Christian Charity: Optimising donation in Christendom
James-Hartree-Law
· · 2m read
0
0
View more