All of skz's Comments + Replies

I have been reading on EA and GWWC etc for some months now.

I find it strange that again and again, many of the discussions assume that the givers are in rich countries and that "giving local" is essentially synonymous with "giving within the rich country that the donor resides in".

If GWWC/ EA is aimed only at donors residing/ earning in rich countries/ the developed world, I think the assumption should be recognized and clearly stated.

If this is not an assumption, the write-ups and discussions need to recognize the possibility that do... (read more)

4
Michelle_Hutchinson
9y
Good point - you're right that I'm too loose with this terminology. At the moment, the vast majority of people we interact with are, as Michael says, in rich countries. But it would be best to be more inclusive in our language. Typically what I mean by donating globally rather than locally is donating without giving preference to organisations simply because they're local. If interpreted literally there's something weird about advising people giving to other countries rather than their own anyway, since SCI and AMF, for example, are based in London. I'll try to keep this in mind and be clearer in future!
5
MichaelDickens
9y
You are totally right that EAs may live in developing countries as well as developed countries. I don't think GWWC would have any problem with such a person taking the pledge and giving to local charities as long as the charities were effective. If I lived in Kenya and donated to GiveDirectly (which works in Kenya), I think that would be perfectly fine. I think the current rhetoric is not too big a problem, since about 99% of GWWC's audience lives in the developed world.