Every unit of resources spent on one cause is a unit not spent on some other cause.
In particular:
Every person working on problem X is a person not working on some other problem Y.
Every dollar donated to organization X is a dollar not donated to some other organization Y.
Every minute spent thinking about question X is a minute not spent thinking about some other question Y.
And it seems obvious that all resources are limited.
At first glance, everything above may seem completely obvious and trivial. Yet many people appear not to fully appreciate this idea or draw its implications.
Of course, the examples above implicitly assume that X and Y are entirely independent. In reality, however, supporting one cause may indirectly help—or hinder—another. So the situation is not quite that simple. Still, I think the framework above is a useful starting point for thinking about how to allocate resources.
Ask yourself more often: Why are you working on what you're working on, rather than on one of the available alternatives? Why do you support particular movements, organizations, or public figures instead of other movements, organizations, or public figures you know about? Why do you allocate your time, money, and other resources among causes X, Y, Z, and so on in the particular proportions that you do?
And if you know little or nothing about the alternatives to what your resources are currently being spent on, spend at least a little time looking for them. It would be unfortunate to discover that you could have spent your entire life doing something far more important and far more fulfilling, but never took the time to reflect on your options or explore them.
How should we evaluate the importance of different areas of work?
One approach, proposed within effective altruism, is the ITN framework. It suggests comparing different causes or fields of work along three dimensions:
Importance. How important are the problems this field is trying to solve? For example, how many people are affected by them, and how significant is their impact on people's lives?
Neglectedness. How many resources has society already devoted to this field? For example, how many people are already working on it? The more resources a field already receives, the less additional value there may be in contributing to it.
Tractability. How solvable are the problems in this field? The greater the impact of additional effort or resources, the more worthwhile it is to work on them.
However, all of this should be considered in light of your own abilities, circumstances, and preferences. Switching fields itself requires resources, which you may not have—or which could be used more effectively elsewhere. Moreover, choosing a field where you would be unable to sustain your motivation is unlikely to accomplish much.
This is a translation of a post originally published on 2023 Jul 11 and last updated on 2026 Aug 5. The translation was produced by ChatGPT and reviewed by two people.
What other materials would be worth mentioning in this post?
What other ways are there to communicate the same idea?
