The debate between philanthropists comes down to timing. Do I give almost all my income today to good causes? Or invest everything so that in 200 years, I'll be able to give 753,000X more, adjusted for inflation?
Long-term compounding is powerful, but life isn't lived in the future, and what if you get hit by a bus in one year or 10?
Here is my hybrid approach to patient philanthropy, using my personal favorite charity, GiveDirectly, as an example.
I am Adam Galas, aka "Dividend Sensei" on Seeking Alpha. I've spent seven years as an investment analyst studying the safest way to earn 10% to 13% long-term returns with recession-optimized blue-chip portfolios.
My personal portfolio, the Dividend Kings ZEUS Income Growth Portfolio, yields 4.1% and has historical and analyst consensus future expected returns of 12.3%, or 9.9% after inflation.
Starting at 0.1% of the portfolio value, I donated to GiveDirectly using 1:1 or 2:1 matching campaigns (leveraged to 2:1 or even 3:1 using Twitter campaigns), and I've donated $3,457 since 2021.
I've lifted 23 people out of poverty, and according to GD's most recent study (from Princeton, Berkley, and the University of California, San Diego), the economic impact was $24,851, adjusted for inflation, a 7.19 economic multiplier.
In other words, for every $1 I donated, there was $7.19 in inflation-adjusted economic benefit to people in Africa, and I changed the lives of two dozen people.
Each year GD has an annual match campaign, sometimes up to $1 million, and a 2:1 match (the next one starting Tuesday, December 27th, 2022.).
You can sometimes find matching campaigns on Twitter promoted by GD. Last week I donated $1K that was matched on GD's fundraiser page at 1:1.
Catherine on Twitter had a $10K matching campaign if you sent a screenshot of the donation receipt.
Peter then matched Catheryn's $10K with his own $10K.
So 3:1 match or 4X your donation.
And a 2.6X economic multiplier, according to their recent study.
This is why I love GiveDirectly; you can measure and track in a spreadsheet the exact impact, both in terms of human lives and economic impact.
$480 per year lifts one person out of poverty (last year, it was $420, high inflation this year).
The initial giving is small, and really I'm paying for it out of pocket from my income rather than selling out of the portfolio (especially in a 2022 bear market).
But let me show you the power of compounding over time.
The portfolio's historical returns are 12% to 13%, and a 10,000 Monte Carlo 75-year simulation shows an 80% chance of this portfolio generating 8.4% to 13.6% annual returns over the next 75 years.
Adjusted for inflation, that's 8.6% to 11.3%.
Let's be conservative and assume that the portfolio's future inflation-adjusted returns are at the low end of that range.
Next, let's assume that my family needs to also live off the portfolio, starting at 0.1% per year withdrawal rates and scaling up 0.1% per year to a maximum of 1%.
So eventually, 1% to live on and 5% per year for hyper-effective giving to the world's poor.
What will the effects be over time? Just take a look (not counting matching, which allows you to boost effectiveness by 2X to 4X).
Note all numbers are inflation-adjusted, so in today's money.
2025 (age 39): annual donation of $3,040 (6 people lifted out of poverty)
2025: cumulative inflation-adjusted donation: $4,942 (10 people lifted out of poverty)
2030 (age 44): annual donation: $20,279 (42 people lifted out of poverty).
2030: cumulative inflation-adjusted donation: $65,296 (136 people lifted out of poverty).
2035 (age 49): annual donation: $55,856 (116 people lifted out of poverty)
2035: cumulative inflation-adjusted donation: $265,188 (552 people lifted out of poverty)
2040 (age 54): annual donation: $114,351 (238 people lifted out of poverty)
2040: cumulative inflation-adjusted donation: $709,812 (1,479 people lifted out of poverty).
2045 (age 59): annual donation: $201,061 (419 people lifted out of poverty).
2045: cumulative inflation-adjusted donation: $1,529,206 (3,186 people lifted out of poverty)
2050 (age 64): annual donation: $322,461 (672 people lifted out of poverty)
2050: cumulative inflation-adjusted donation: $2,883,380 (6,007 people lifted out of poverty)
2055 (age 69): annual donation: $486,360 (1,013 people lifted out of poverty)
2055 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $4,968,631 (10,351 people lifted out of poverty)
2060 (age 74): annual donation: $702,162 (1,463 people lifted out of poverty)
2060 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation: $8,024,968 (16,719 people lifted out of poverty)
2065 (age 79): annual donation of $981,167 (2,044 people lifted out of poverty)
2065 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation of $12,344,979 (25,719 people lifted out of poverty)
2070 (age 84): annual donation of $1,336,938 (2,785 people lifted out of poverty)
2070 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation of $18,284,385 (38,092 people lifted out of poverty)
2075 (age 89) annual donation of $1,684,659 (3,510 people lifted out of poverty)
2075 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation of $26,077,369 (54,328 people lifted out of poverty)
2080 (age 94) annual donation of $2,023,582 (4,216 people lifted out of poverty)
2080 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation of $35,497,215 (73,953 people lifted out of poverty)
Harvard is working on an anti-aging treatment they think will be commercially available in 10 to 15 years. Alphabet (Google) has two subsidiaries working on anti-aging.
If I can give long enough, I can potentially live for centuries or, at the very least, turn my portfolio into a perpetual charitable trust. And this is how I can help end extreme poverty entirely.
2100 (age 114) annual donation of $4,019,601 (8,374 people lifted out of poverty)
2100 cumulative inflation-adjusted return of $94,958,450 (197,830 people lifted out of poverty)
2125 (age 139) annual donation of $8,942,714 (18,631 people lifted out of poverty)
2125 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation of $251,880,346 (524,751 people lifted out of poverty)
2150 (age 164) annual donation of $19,322,860 (40,256 people lifted out of poverty)
2150 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $594,432,065 (1,238,400 people lifted out of poverty)
2175 (age 189) annual donation of $41,208,898 (85,852 people lifted out of poverty)
2175 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $1,328,375,330 (2,767,449 people lifted out of poverty)
2200 (age 214) annual donation of $87,354,556 (181,989 people lifted out of poverty)
2200 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $2,887,548,835 (6,015,727 people lifted out of poverty)
2250 (age 264) annual donation of $389,794,175 (812,071 people lifted out of poverty)
2250 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $13,154,430,576 (27,405,064 people lifted out of poverty)
2300 (age 314) annual donation $1,734,310,469 (3,613,147 people lifted out of poverty)
2300 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $58,869,237,194 (122,644,244 people lifted out of poverty)
2350 (age 364) annual donation $7,711,450,846 (16,065,523 people lifted out of poverty)
2350 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $262,170,250,905 (546,188,023 people lifted out of poverty)
2400 (age 414) annual donation $34,283,242,696 (71,423,422 people lifted out of poverty)
2400 cumulative inflation-adjusted donations $1,004,402,009,845 (Andrew Carnegie holds the current record at $438.5 billion in today's dollars) - 2,429,232,648 people lifted out of poverty
2450 (age 464) annual donation $152,409,985,174 (317,520,802 people lifted out of poverty)
2450 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $5,184,282,938,209 (10,800,589,455 lifted out of poverty)
Once extreme poverty is eliminated, I plan to focus on regular poverty and global UBI starting at $500, then $1,000, and eventually a peak at $3,000 per month, adjusted for inflation, for anyone who wants to sign up.
$3,000 per month is sufficient for just about anyone to afford a comfortable life, including health insurance and education (assuming it's not provided by the government).
Basic needs (via UBI), healthcare, and education are the three legs of the Star Trek utopia I have from the Army (pension, VA, and GI bill).
It's my life's mission to bring this Utopia to all humanity.
How long will that take?
2500 (age 514) annual donation $677,550,606,749 (1,411,563,764 people lifted out of poverty)
2500 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $23,047,770,140,492 (48,016,187,793 people lifted out of poverty)
Note that poverty won't exist by 2,500, but I'm providing the numbers for context.
2550 (age 564) annual donation $3,012,099,639,781 (6,275,207,583 people lifted out of poverty)
2550 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $102,461,213,367,918 (213,460,861,183 people lifted out of poverty)
How much would $500 monthly UBI for all humanity cost? The UN's estimated 11 billion peak population and $6K annual UBI (adjusted for inflation) cost $66 trillion annually.
$1,000 monthly UBI costs $132 trillion, and $3,000 Star Trek Utopia UBI $396 trillion annually.
By 2550 my portfolio/charitable trust will be donating $3 trillion annually.
So if we define Star Trek Utopia ($36K per year for all humanity, adjusted for inflation each year), when will we achieve that?
2600 (age 614) annual donation of $13,390,499,184,067 ($1217 annual UBI for all humanity)
2600 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $455,499,252,405,406 (1,309X more than Andrew Carnegie)
2650 (age 664) annual donation $59,528,393,731,069 ($5412 annual UBI = $451 per month)
2650 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $2,024,954,398,250,170 ($2 quadrillion, 4,618X more than Andrew Carngie)
2700 (age 714) annual donation $264,637,601,961,757 ($24,058 annual UBI = $2,005 per month)
2700 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $9,002,076,107,668,440 ($9 quadrillion, 20,529X more than Carnegie)
Star Trek Utopia achieved in...
2714 (age 728) annual donation $401,856,706,735,331 ($36,532 annual UBI = $3,044 per month)
Cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $13,669,806,068,717,800 ($14 quadrillion = 31,174X more than Carnegie)
What if there are more than 11 billion people in the future? Nasa estimates there are enough resources in the Solar System to sustainably support approximately 200 billion humans).
How much would it cost to provide 200 billion people with $3K per month, adjusted for inflation each year? $7.2 quadrillion per year ($7,200 trillion).
How long would that take?
2811 Star Trek Utopia For 200 Billion Humans (Complete Colonization Of The Solar System)
2811 (age 825) annual donation of $7,261,901,439,054,070 ($7.26 quadrillion)
Cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $247,025,332,027,871,000 ($247 quadrillion) = 563,342X more than Carnegie
And keep in mind I'm assuming that I keep paying taxes on this portfolio over time. Charitable trusts don't pay taxes. I consider taxes a form of social charity. Here are the cumulative stats about this portfolio, running on the most conservative inflation-adjusted returns until Star Trek Utopia is achieved for 200 billion people in 2811.
3,000 cumulative inflation-adjusted dividend $69,487,551,938,900,600,000 ($70,000 quadrillion = 158,466,481X more than Andrew Carnegie.
You might think that such compounding as I'm describing (8.5% inflation-adjusted growth) can't possibly continue for centuries. After all, the global economy can only get so large, right?
Consider this. Nasa estimates that the mineral value of just the eight most valuable asteroids is approximately $63 quintillion ($63 million trillion).
That's approximately 603,000X more than the world's total economic output in 2021.
And that's just the eight most valuable asteroids.
At least 100 earth's worth of resources is available in the solar system (and possibly much more with optimal space mining methods).
Add in centuries of productivity improvements and the solar system's economy, with a sustainable population of up to 200 billion (25X more than the Earth's population today) could be many orders of magnitude larger than today.
Bottom Line: I started giving immediately but am scaling up over time and taking a long-term focus.
If you give thousands, you can make a difference in some people's lives.
If you give millions, you can change many people's lives.
If you give billions, you can change the world.
If you give trillions over centuries, you can change everything.
If you give quadrillions over a millennium, you can get to Star Trek Utopia.
And keep in mind this is just my portfolio! I'm just one person. With 11 billion people in 2100 and thousands of trillionaires and millions of billionaires (and a few quadrillionaires), I'm hardly the only person who will be working on solving the world's problems.
My goal isn't to single handily bring about Star Trek Utopia in 2811; it's to help an army of like-minded philanthropists to bring about Star Trek utopia much sooner.
Does utopia mean there are no problems? Of course not. As Star Trek Discovery shows, even in the 32nd century, the citizens of utopia still have challenges and issues to deal with and overcome.
For every solution to a problem, you create two unintended consequence problems. But if those new problems are 25% as severe as the problem you solved initially, then you're 50% better off.
And when you solve those two new problems, you create four new problems, each 25% as severe and 50% better off and 125% better off than when you solved the original problem.
This is how humanity has slouched its way toward utopia for millennia.
And it's how we'll continue to progress for millennia.
I hope to be around for that long, thanks to Harvard's anti-aging treatments that will allow me to remain biologically 25 years old for thousands of years (and my friends and family as well).
But if I can't, my portfolio and its sacred mission for a Star Trek utopia will continue long after I'm gone.
Today's problems seem insurmountable, just too large to overcome. But the value in philanthropy is in the journey and steady improvements in human existence.
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" - Lao Tzu
Whether I get hit by a bus in a few years or live for Millenia, I look forward to helping people live their financial dreams (my job) and helping lift people out of poverty.
The only value to our lives is our impact on others, and patient effective altruism is the blessing that gives my life its meaning.
I'd like to wish you and yours a healthy, relaxing, safe, and joyous holiday season.
Are these some grand dreams? You bet. But as I like to say, weekends are for dreaming, especially when the dreams are this meaningful and wonderful;)
Dear Adam,
Great to read your post, we share the same philosophy, that by investing we can greatly increase the amount donated to charity each year. Our solution is to donate half of the interest to charities each year and to use the other half for compounding.
Have a look at our website if you are interested: www.giveforgood.world
Feel free to drop us a message if you're interested to exchange ideas or to talk about a potential collaboration! (https://giveforgood.world/en/contact-us/)
Best regards,
Rik Viergever
Founder @ Give For Good
In order to be able to communicate about malaria from a fundraising perspective, it would be amazing if there would be a documentary about malaria. Personal compelling stories that anyone can relate to. Not about the science behind the disease, as that wouldn't work probably. Just like "An inconvenient truth", but then around Malaria. I am truly baffled I can't find anything close to what I was hoping would exist already. Anyone knows why this is? Or am I googling wrong?
Marcus Daniell appreciation note
@Marcus Daniell, cofounder of High Impact Athletes, came back from knee surgery and is donating half of his prize money this year. He projects raising $100,000. Through a partnership with Momentum, people can pledge to donate for each point he gets; he has raised $28,000 through this so far. It's cool to see this, and I'm wishing him luck for his final year of professional play!
Maybe EA philanthropists should be invest more conservatively, actually
The pros and cons of unusually high risk tolerance in EA philanthropy have been discussed a lot, e.g. here. One factor that may weigh in favor of higher risk aversion is that nonprofits benefit from a stable stream of donations, rather than one that goes up and down a lot with the general economy. This is for a few reasons:
* Funding stability in a cause area makes it easier for employees to advance their careers because they can count on stable employment. It also makes it easier for nonprofits to hire, retain, and develop talent. This allows both nonprofits and their employees to have greater impact in the long run. Whereas a higher but more volatile stream of funding might not lead to as much impact.
* It becomes more politically difficult to make progress in some causes during a recession. For example, politicians may have lower appetite for farm animal welfare regulations and might even be more willing to repeal existing regulations if they believe the regulations stifle economic growth. This makes it especially important for animal welfare orgs to retain funding.
Effective giving quick take for giving season
This is quite half-baked because I think my social circle contains not very many E2G folks, but I have a feeling that when EA suddenly came into a lot more funding and the word on the street was that we were “talent constrained, not funding constrained”, some people earning to give ended up pretty jerked around, or at least feeling that way. They may have picked jobs and life plans based on the earn to give model, where it would be years before the plans came to fruition, and in the middle, they lost status and attention from their community. There might have been an additional dynamic where people who took the advice the most seriously ended up deeply embedded in other professional communities, so heard about the switch later or found it harder to reconnect with the community and the new priorities.
I really don’t have an overall view on how bad all of this was, or if anyone should have done anything differently, but I do have a sense that EA has a bit of a feature of jerking people around like this, where priorities and advice change faster than the advice can be fully acted on. The world and the right priorities really do change, though; I’m not sure what should be done except to be clearer about all this, but I suspect it’s hard to properly convey “this seems like the absolute best thing in the world to do, also next year my view could be that it’s basically useless” even if you use those exact words. And maybe people have done this, or maybe it’s worth trying harder. Another approach would be something like insurance.
A frame I’ve been more interested in lately (definitely not original to me) is that earning to give is a kind of resilience / robustness-add for EA, where more donors just means better ability to withstand crazy events, even if in most worlds the small donors aren’t adding much in the way of impact. Not clear that that nets out, but “good in case of tail risk” seems like an important aspect.
A more
I feel a bit confused about how much I should be donating.
1. On the one hand there’s just a straight forward case that donating could help many sentient beings to a greater degree than it helps me. On the other hand, donating 10% for me feels like it’s coming from a place of fitting in with the EA consensus, gaining a certain kind of status and feeling good rather than believing it’s the best thing for me to do.
2. I’m also confused about whether I’m already donating a substantial fraction of my income.
* I’m pretty confident that I’m taking at least a 10% pay-cut in my current role. If nothing else my salary right now is not adjusted for inflation which was ~8% last year so it feels like I’m at least underpaid by that amount (though it’s possible they were overpaying me before). Many of my friends earn more than twice as much as I do and I think if I negotiated hard for a 100% salary increase the board would likely comply.
* So how much of my lost salary should I consider to be a donation? I think numbers between 0% and 100% are plausible. -50% also isn’t insane to me as my salary does funge with other peoples donations to charities.
* One solution is that I should just negotiate for my salary from a non-altruistic perspective, and then decide how much I want to donate back to my organisation after that. This seems a bit inefficient though and I think we should be able to do better.
3. One reason I don’t donate ~50% of my salary is that I genuinely believe it’s more cost-effective for me to build runway than donate right now. I quite like the idea of discussing this with someone who strongly disagrees with me and I admire and see if they come round to my position. It feels a bit too easy to find reasons not to give, and I’m very aware of my own selfishness in many parts of my life.
The Effective Ventures Foundation UK’s Full Accounts for Fiscal Year 2022 has been released via the UK companies house filings (August 30 2023 entry - it won't let me direct link the PDF).
* Important to note that as of June 2022 “EV UK is no longer the sole member of EV US and now operate as separate organizations but coordinate per an affiliation agreement (p11).”
* It’s noted that Open Philanthropy was, for the 2021/2022 fiscal year, the primary funder for the organization (p8).
* EVF (UK&US) had consolidated income of just over £138 million (as of June 2022). That’s a ~£95 million increase from 2021.
* Consolidated expenses for 2022 were ~ £79 million - an increase of £56 million from 2021 (still p8).
* By end of fiscal year consolidated net funds were just over £87 million of which £45.7 million were unrestricted.
* (p10) outlines EVF’s approach to risk management and mentions FTX collapse.
* A lot of boiler plate in this document so you may want to skip ahead to page 26 for more specific breakdowns
* EVF made grants totaling ~£50 million (to institutions and 826 individuals) an almost £42 million increase in one year (p27)
* A list of grant breakdowns (p28) ; a lot of recognizable organizations listed from AMF to BERI and ACE
* also a handful of orgs I do not recognize or vague groupings like “other EA organizations” for almost £3 million
* Expenses details (p30) main programs are (1) Core Activities (2) 80,000 Hours (3) Forethought and (4) Grant-making
* Expenses totaled £79 million for 2022 (a £65 million increase from 2021) which seems like a huge jump for just one year
* further expense details are on (p31-33) and tentatively show a £23.3 million jump between 2021 and 2022 [but the table line items are NOT the same across 2021/2022 so it’s hard to tell - if anyone can break this down better please do in the comments]
* We may now have a more accurate number of £1.6 million spent on marketing for What We Owe The Future (which i
I was finding it hard to keep track of all the different organizations posting about their marginal funding plans recently, so i made a simple spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19nZWRPsVd_-MzzA63_qWpuMDcoNFzj0wPi8fIXQVxhs/edit
Feel free to add any other EA orgs or fix errors or re-arrange everything or whatever.
A Simple And Effective Way To End Global Poverty
The debate between philanthropists comes down to timing. Do I give almost all my income today to good causes? Or invest everything so that in 200 years, I'll be able to give 753,000X more, adjusted for inflation?
Long-term compounding is powerful, but life isn't lived in the future, and what if you get hit by a bus in one year or 10?
Here is my hybrid approach to patient philanthropy, using my personal favorite charity, GiveDirectly, as an example.
I am Adam Galas, aka "Dividend Sensei" on Seeking Alpha. I've spent seven years as an investment analyst studying the safest way to earn 10% to 13% long-term returns with recession-optimized blue-chip portfolios.
My personal portfolio, the Dividend Kings ZEUS Income Growth Portfolio, yields 4.1% and has historical and analyst consensus future expected returns of 12.3%, or 9.9% after inflation.
Starting at 0.1% of the portfolio value, I donated to GiveDirectly using 1:1 or 2:1 matching campaigns (leveraged to 2:1 or even 3:1 using Twitter campaigns), and I've donated $3,457 since 2021.
I've lifted 23 people out of poverty, and according to GD's most recent study (from Princeton, Berkley, and the University of California, San Diego), the economic impact was $24,851, adjusted for inflation, a 7.19 economic multiplier.
In other words, for every $1 I donated, there was $7.19 in inflation-adjusted economic benefit to people in Africa, and I changed the lives of two dozen people.
Each year GD has an annual match campaign, sometimes up to $1 million, and a 2:1 match (the next one starting Tuesday, December 27th, 2022.).
You can sometimes find matching campaigns on Twitter promoted by GD. Last week I donated $1K that was matched on GD's fundraiser page at 1:1.
Catherine on Twitter had a $10K matching campaign if you sent a screenshot of the donation receipt.
Peter then matched Catheryn's $10K with his own $10K.
So 3:1 match or 4X your donation.
And a 2.6X economic multiplier, according to their recent study.
This is why I love GiveDirectly; you can measure and track in a spreadsheet the exact impact, both in terms of human lives and economic impact.
$480 per year lifts one person out of poverty (last year, it was $420, high inflation this year).
The initial giving is small, and really I'm paying for it out of pocket from my income rather than selling out of the portfolio (especially in a 2022 bear market).
But let me show you the power of compounding over time.
The portfolio's historical returns are 12% to 13%, and a 10,000 Monte Carlo 75-year simulation shows an 80% chance of this portfolio generating 8.4% to 13.6% annual returns over the next 75 years.
Adjusted for inflation, that's 8.6% to 11.3%.
Let's be conservative and assume that the portfolio's future inflation-adjusted returns are at the low end of that range.
Next, let's assume that my family needs to also live off the portfolio, starting at 0.1% per year withdrawal rates and scaling up 0.1% per year to a maximum of 1%.
So eventually, 1% to live on and 5% per year for hyper-effective giving to the world's poor.
What will the effects be over time? Just take a look (not counting matching, which allows you to boost effectiveness by 2X to 4X).
Note all numbers are inflation-adjusted, so in today's money.
2025 (age 39): annual donation of $3,040 (6 people lifted out of poverty)
2025: cumulative inflation-adjusted donation: $4,942 (10 people lifted out of poverty)
2030 (age 44): annual donation: $20,279 (42 people lifted out of poverty).
2030: cumulative inflation-adjusted donation: $65,296 (136 people lifted out of poverty).
2035 (age 49): annual donation: $55,856 (116 people lifted out of poverty)
2035: cumulative inflation-adjusted donation: $265,188 (552 people lifted out of poverty)
2040 (age 54): annual donation: $114,351 (238 people lifted out of poverty)
2040: cumulative inflation-adjusted donation: $709,812 (1,479 people lifted out of poverty).
2045 (age 59): annual donation: $201,061 (419 people lifted out of poverty).
2045: cumulative inflation-adjusted donation: $1,529,206 (3,186 people lifted out of poverty)
2050 (age 64): annual donation: $322,461 (672 people lifted out of poverty)
2050: cumulative inflation-adjusted donation: $2,883,380 (6,007 people lifted out of poverty)
2055 (age 69): annual donation: $486,360 (1,013 people lifted out of poverty)
2055 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $4,968,631 (10,351 people lifted out of poverty)
2060 (age 74): annual donation: $702,162 (1,463 people lifted out of poverty)
2060 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation: $8,024,968 (16,719 people lifted out of poverty)
2065 (age 79): annual donation of $981,167 (2,044 people lifted out of poverty)
2065 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation of $12,344,979 (25,719 people lifted out of poverty)
2070 (age 84): annual donation of $1,336,938 (2,785 people lifted out of poverty)
2070 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation of $18,284,385 (38,092 people lifted out of poverty)
2075 (age 89) annual donation of $1,684,659 (3,510 people lifted out of poverty)
2075 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation of $26,077,369 (54,328 people lifted out of poverty)
2080 (age 94) annual donation of $2,023,582 (4,216 people lifted out of poverty)
2080 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation of $35,497,215 (73,953 people lifted out of poverty)
Harvard is working on an anti-aging treatment they think will be commercially available in 10 to 15 years. Alphabet (Google) has two subsidiaries working on anti-aging.
If I can give long enough, I can potentially live for centuries or, at the very least, turn my portfolio into a perpetual charitable trust. And this is how I can help end extreme poverty entirely.
2100 (age 114) annual donation of $4,019,601 (8,374 people lifted out of poverty)
2100 cumulative inflation-adjusted return of $94,958,450 (197,830 people lifted out of poverty)
2125 (age 139) annual donation of $8,942,714 (18,631 people lifted out of poverty)
2125 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation of $251,880,346 (524,751 people lifted out of poverty)
2150 (age 164) annual donation of $19,322,860 (40,256 people lifted out of poverty)
2150 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $594,432,065 (1,238,400 people lifted out of poverty)
2175 (age 189) annual donation of $41,208,898 (85,852 people lifted out of poverty)
2175 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $1,328,375,330 (2,767,449 people lifted out of poverty)
2200 (age 214) annual donation of $87,354,556 (181,989 people lifted out of poverty)
2200 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $2,887,548,835 (6,015,727 people lifted out of poverty)
2250 (age 264) annual donation of $389,794,175 (812,071 people lifted out of poverty)
2250 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $13,154,430,576 (27,405,064 people lifted out of poverty)
2300 (age 314) annual donation $1,734,310,469 (3,613,147 people lifted out of poverty)
2300 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $58,869,237,194 (122,644,244 people lifted out of poverty)
2350 (age 364) annual donation $7,711,450,846 (16,065,523 people lifted out of poverty)
2350 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $262,170,250,905 (546,188,023 people lifted out of poverty)
2400 (age 414) annual donation $34,283,242,696 (71,423,422 people lifted out of poverty)
2400 cumulative inflation-adjusted donations $1,004,402,009,845 (Andrew Carnegie holds the current record at $438.5 billion in today's dollars) - 2,429,232,648 people lifted out of poverty
2450 (age 464) annual donation $152,409,985,174 (317,520,802 people lifted out of poverty)
2450 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $5,184,282,938,209 (10,800,589,455 lifted out of poverty)
Once extreme poverty is eliminated, I plan to focus on regular poverty and global UBI starting at $500, then $1,000, and eventually a peak at $3,000 per month, adjusted for inflation, for anyone who wants to sign up.
$3,000 per month is sufficient for just about anyone to afford a comfortable life, including health insurance and education (assuming it's not provided by the government).
Basic needs (via UBI), healthcare, and education are the three legs of the Star Trek utopia I have from the Army (pension, VA, and GI bill).
It's my life's mission to bring this Utopia to all humanity.
How long will that take?
2500 (age 514) annual donation $677,550,606,749 (1,411,563,764 people lifted out of poverty)
2500 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $23,047,770,140,492 (48,016,187,793 people lifted out of poverty)
Note that poverty won't exist by 2,500, but I'm providing the numbers for context.
2550 (age 564) annual donation $3,012,099,639,781 (6,275,207,583 people lifted out of poverty)
2550 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $102,461,213,367,918 (213,460,861,183 people lifted out of poverty)
How much would $500 monthly UBI for all humanity cost? The UN's estimated 11 billion peak population and $6K annual UBI (adjusted for inflation) cost $66 trillion annually.
$1,000 monthly UBI costs $132 trillion, and $3,000 Star Trek Utopia UBI $396 trillion annually.
By 2550 my portfolio/charitable trust will be donating $3 trillion annually.
So if we define Star Trek Utopia ($36K per year for all humanity, adjusted for inflation each year), when will we achieve that?
2600 (age 614) annual donation of $13,390,499,184,067 ($1217 annual UBI for all humanity)
2600 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $455,499,252,405,406 (1,309X more than Andrew Carnegie)
2650 (age 664) annual donation $59,528,393,731,069 ($5412 annual UBI = $451 per month)
2650 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $2,024,954,398,250,170 ($2 quadrillion, 4,618X more than Andrew Carngie)
2700 (age 714) annual donation $264,637,601,961,757 ($24,058 annual UBI = $2,005 per month)
2700 cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $9,002,076,107,668,440 ($9 quadrillion, 20,529X more than Carnegie)
Star Trek Utopia achieved in...
2714 (age 728) annual donation $401,856,706,735,331 ($36,532 annual UBI = $3,044 per month)
Cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $13,669,806,068,717,800 ($14 quadrillion = 31,174X more than Carnegie)
What if there are more than 11 billion people in the future? Nasa estimates there are enough resources in the Solar System to sustainably support approximately 200 billion humans).
How much would it cost to provide 200 billion people with $3K per month, adjusted for inflation each year? $7.2 quadrillion per year ($7,200 trillion).
How long would that take?
2811 Star Trek Utopia For 200 Billion Humans (Complete Colonization Of The Solar System)
2811 (age 825) annual donation of $7,261,901,439,054,070 ($7.26 quadrillion)
Cumulative inflation-adjusted donation $247,025,332,027,871,000 ($247 quadrillion) = 563,342X more than Carnegie
And keep in mind I'm assuming that I keep paying taxes on this portfolio over time. Charitable trusts don't pay taxes. I consider taxes a form of social charity. Here are the cumulative stats about this portfolio, running on the most conservative inflation-adjusted returns until Star Trek Utopia is achieved for 200 billion people in 2811.
2811 annual inflation-adjusted dividends: $19,365,070,504,161,000 ($19.4 quadrillion)
2811 cumulative inflation-adjusted dividends: $658,734,218,776,728,000 ($658.7 quadrillion)
2811 annual inflation-adjusted taxes $3,017,264,954,836,730 ($3 quadrillion)
2811 cumulative inflation-adjusted taxes $102,637,151,381,368,000 ($102.7 quadrillion)
And just for fun, let's consider the annual and cumulative donations for the year 3,000.
3,000 (age 1,014) annual-inflation-adjusted dividend $2,042,753,059,308,000,000 ($2,043 quadrillion)
3,000 cumulative inflation-adjusted dividend $69,487,551,938,900,600,000 ($70,000 quadrillion = 158,466,481X more than Andrew Carnegie.
You might think that such compounding as I'm describing (8.5% inflation-adjusted growth) can't possibly continue for centuries. After all, the global economy can only get so large, right?
Consider this. Nasa estimates that the mineral value of just the eight most valuable asteroids is approximately $63 quintillion ($63 million trillion).
That's approximately 603,000X more than the world's total economic output in 2021.
And that's just the eight most valuable asteroids.
At least 100 earth's worth of resources is available in the solar system (and possibly much more with optimal space mining methods).
Add in centuries of productivity improvements and the solar system's economy, with a sustainable population of up to 200 billion (25X more than the Earth's population today) could be many orders of magnitude larger than today.
Bottom Line: I started giving immediately but am scaling up over time and taking a long-term focus.
If you give thousands, you can make a difference in some people's lives.
If you give millions, you can change many people's lives.
If you give billions, you can change the world.
If you give trillions over centuries, you can change everything.
If you give quadrillions over a millennium, you can get to Star Trek Utopia.
And keep in mind this is just my portfolio! I'm just one person. With 11 billion people in 2100 and thousands of trillionaires and millions of billionaires (and a few quadrillionaires), I'm hardly the only person who will be working on solving the world's problems.
My goal isn't to single handily bring about Star Trek Utopia in 2811; it's to help an army of like-minded philanthropists to bring about Star Trek utopia much sooner.
Does utopia mean there are no problems? Of course not. As Star Trek Discovery shows, even in the 32nd century, the citizens of utopia still have challenges and issues to deal with and overcome.
For every solution to a problem, you create two unintended consequence problems. But if those new problems are 25% as severe as the problem you solved initially, then you're 50% better off.
And when you solve those two new problems, you create four new problems, each 25% as severe and 50% better off and 125% better off than when you solved the original problem.
This is how humanity has slouched its way toward utopia for millennia.
And it's how we'll continue to progress for millennia.
I hope to be around for that long, thanks to Harvard's anti-aging treatments that will allow me to remain biologically 25 years old for thousands of years (and my friends and family as well).
But if I can't, my portfolio and its sacred mission for a Star Trek utopia will continue long after I'm gone.
Today's problems seem insurmountable, just too large to overcome. But the value in philanthropy is in the journey and steady improvements in human existence.
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" - Lao Tzu
Whether I get hit by a bus in a few years or live for Millenia, I look forward to helping people live their financial dreams (my job) and helping lift people out of poverty.
The only value to our lives is our impact on others, and patient effective altruism is the blessing that gives my life its meaning.
I'd like to wish you and yours a healthy, relaxing, safe, and joyous holiday season.
Are these some grand dreams? You bet. But as I like to say, weekends are for dreaming, especially when the dreams are this meaningful and wonderful;)
Live long and prosper:)
Dear Adam, Great to read your post, we share the same philosophy, that by investing we can greatly increase the amount donated to charity each year. Our solution is to donate half of the interest to charities each year and to use the other half for compounding. Have a look at our website if you are interested: www.giveforgood.world Feel free to drop us a message if you're interested to exchange ideas or to talk about a potential collaboration! (https://giveforgood.world/en/contact-us/) Best regards, Rik Viergever Founder @ Give For Good