Ah, good point! One confounding factor for me is that my primary cause area is animal welfare. In this realm, I am curious if the idea of a power transfer to those less fortunate is relevant. Perhaps if nonhuman animals are given a stake in policy in the long run, this could be true.
Great point that the counterfactual to my question is not always investment! (i.e. I can reduce consumption to increase my donations, rather than decreasing my investments) For context, I am already very bought in to GWWC (signed the pledge!), the life you can save, etc… I am just trying to be truth seeking in what I should be using funds for. Perhaps there is some truth to needing fundamental systems change rather than just neartermist effective giving to revamp long-term power structures.
Side note: I’m simply using power transfer as a proxy for ‘voice in the world’. Unfortunately, given current systems wealth is our means of power. If philanthropy leaves more room for capital gains with non-altruistic actors, then this suggests I should completely revamp my theory of change! (perhaps towards something like international tax code reform?)
Investing to give more later can definitely be a reasonable strategy, depending on many things. There’s a whole forum topic with 10 years of posts on the timing of philanthropy.
Re: animals, I think by donating to animal charities the power transfer would be from you to the organizations you would be supporting, and by investing the power transfer would be to your future self.
But I think this model is too zero-sum. I think the overall influence of animal rights proponents can increase as a consequence of better allocation of capital between the different actors. Similarly, by investing the extra influence of your future self could be greater than the reduced influence of your present self, depending on your returns.
Ah, good point! One confounding factor for me is that my primary cause area is animal welfare. In this realm, I am curious if the idea of a power transfer to those less fortunate is relevant. Perhaps if nonhuman animals are given a stake in policy in the long run, this could be true.
Great point that the counterfactual to my question is not always investment! (i.e. I can reduce consumption to increase my donations, rather than decreasing my investments) For context, I am already very bought in to GWWC (signed the pledge!), the life you can save, etc… I am just trying to be truth seeking in what I should be using funds for. Perhaps there is some truth to needing fundamental systems change rather than just neartermist effective giving to revamp long-term power structures.
Side note: I’m simply using power transfer as a proxy for ‘voice in the world’. Unfortunately, given current systems wealth is our means of power. If philanthropy leaves more room for capital gains with non-altruistic actors, then this suggests I should completely revamp my theory of change! (perhaps towards something like international tax code reform?)
Investing to give more later can definitely be a reasonable strategy, depending on many things. There’s a whole forum topic with 10 years of posts on the timing of philanthropy.
Re: animals, I think by donating to animal charities the power transfer would be from you to the organizations you would be supporting, and by investing the power transfer would be to your future self.
But I think this model is too zero-sum. I think the overall influence of animal rights proponents can increase as a consequence of better allocation of capital between the different actors. Similarly, by investing the extra influence of your future self could be greater than the reduced influence of your present self, depending on your returns.