Radical generosity emphasizes a deep commitment to giving and sharing, often going beyond traditional notions of charity or philanthropy. It involves a willingness to make significant sacrifices in order to create positive change in the lives of others and to address systemic issues. As human beings, we have an obligation to be generous to others both inside and outside our moral circle.[1] Extending generosity beyond one's immediate moral circle reflects a commitment to universal values and the well-being of all human beings, regardless of their proximity or familiarity. 

Effective altruism accentuates the significance of effecting meaningful positive changes with one's resources and endeavors, particularly in tackling urgent global predicaments such as poverty, inequality, and health crises. Radical generosity complements this objective by advocating for a mindset and practice of giving that transcends conventional charity norms.

While the concept of effective altruism has gained traction in affluent nations, this commendable innovative approach to philanthropy is gradually taking root in the Global South. Many regions in the Global South confront systemic challenges like poverty, inadequate access to fundamental resources, and limited opportunities for healthcare and education. Nonetheless, the unique circumstances in these nations necessitate an adaptation of the principles of effective altruism, with radical generosity being a prominent feature of this adaptation.

For instance, the widely known “earn to give” notion, derived from the premise of radical generosity, is less likely to find widespread support in the Global South. The "earn to give" notion primarily revolves around monetary contributions to effective charities making it more feasible for affluent nations given the numerous well-paid jobs. In contrast, securing a comparatively high-paying job in the Global South is a privilege reserved for a small, highly educated, or skilled minority, and even then, earnings fall significantly short of the average incomes in affluent nations.  However, having fewer proponents of the earn-to-give notion is not a reflection of the generosity of individuals in the Global South. In fact, as per the World Giving Index 2022, African nations consistently rank among the most generous globally. While the monetary contributions from African nations might be less compared to wealthier countries, African nations notably rank higher in terms of donation and volunteering. If you ask me, exhibiting generosity without the cushion of a high-paying job is a far more radical stance. 

To avoid underestimating the contributions of effective altruists in the Global South, careful reasoning must be invested in tailoring the principles of effective altruism to fit the diverse social, cultural, and economic contexts. Moreover, it's vital to acknowledge that generosity extends beyond monetary contributions and encompasses sharing skills, presence, support, advocacy, and mentorship. Africa, in particular, thrives on community-driven giving, where individuals pool their resources to support others. Noteworthy cultural practices that emphasize communal giving include South Africa's 'Ubuntu,' Kenya's 'Harambee,' and Nigeria's 'Ajo.' These established cultural practices not only foster unity but also nurture a culture of generosity.

These seemingly modest practices wield tangible effects on individuals' lives as well as the communities they belong to. Broadening our comprehension of generosity empowers us to make substantial contributions while addressing the distinctive challenges of various societies. Moreover, this approach sidesteps the impersonal and transactional nature that can accompany monetary contributions.

In conclusion, perceptions of effective altruism and radical generosity can differ within the Global South, given its multifaceted nature shaped by diverse social, cultural, and economic contexts. Therefore, engaging in all-encompassing and respectful dialogues, considering local perspectives and priorities, is imperative when deliberating on effectiveness. By intertwining and embracing the principles of effective altruism with a Global South perspective, radical generosity can evolve into a potent catalyst for constructive change.

However, this isn't meant to discourage those who can afford monetary donations. Rather its intention is to expand our comprehension of generosity and to illustrate how generosity takes shape in the Global South. As the Swahili saying goes, 'Kutoa ni suala la utayari tu, sio mali,' meaning 'Giving is a matter of willingness, not wealth.'


 

  1. ^

     A person’s “moral circle” classically refers to the entities that that person perceives as having moral standing, or as being worthy of moral concern. And “moral circle expansion” classically refers to moral circles moving “outwards”, for example from kin to people of other races to nonhuman animals, such that “more distant” entities are now in one’s “circle of concern”.


     

Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

An interesting read. Thank you for highlighting this perspective, Wanjiru!

I read your article and it was amazing! I loved how well-written and informative it was. Great job!

Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
TL;DR In a sentence:  We are shifting our strategic focus to put our proactive effort towards helping people work on safely navigating the transition to a world with AGI, while keeping our existing content up. In more detail: We think it’s plausible that frontier AI companies will develop AGI by 2030. Given the significant risks involved, and the fairly limited amount of work that’s been done to reduce these risks, 80,000 Hours is adopting a new strategic approach to focus our efforts in this area.   During 2025, we are prioritising: 1. Deepening our understanding as an organisation of how to improve the chances that the development of AI goes well 2. Communicating why and how people can contribute to reducing the risks 3. Connecting our users with impactful roles in this field 4. And fostering an internal culture which helps us to achieve these goals We remain focused on impactful careers, and we plan to keep our existing written and audio content accessible to users. However, we are narrowing our focus as we think that most of the very best ways to have impact with one’s career now involve helping make the transition to a world with AGI go well.   This post goes into more detail on why we’ve updated our strategic direction, how we hope to achieve it, what we think the community implications might be, and answers some potential questions. Why we’re updating our strategic direction Since 2016, we've ranked ‘risks from artificial intelligence’ as our top pressing problem. Whilst we’ve provided research and support on how to work on reducing AI risks since that point (and before!), we’ve put in varying amounts of investment over time and between programmes. We think we should consolidate our effort and focus because:   * We think that AGI by 2030 is plausible — and this is much sooner than most of us would have predicted 5 years ago. This is far from guaranteed, but we think the view is compelling based on analysis of the current flow of inputs into AI
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism