I outlined a lot of reasons for prioritizing humans, some, but not all of them are based on emotions and gut feelings. Many other are based on rational considerations. I’m not sure if these rational considerations are correct or if they might be misguided.
You’re right that asking people to donate more than 10% is too much. But here’s the thing. Animal charities are way more effective than human charities. So giving just another 1 or 2 percent to animal charities can be incredibly effective.
For this reason I love animal charities, they are extremely cheap ways of doing good.
But can we call ourselves philanthropists if we don’t donate anything to people?
According to Wikipedia: The word philanthropy comes from Ancient Greekφιλανθρωπία (philanthrōpía) ‘love of humanity’, from philo- ‘to love, be fond of’ and anthrōpos ‘humankind, mankind’.
Everyone can decide about percentages for themselves. My idea of preserving 10% for humans + existential risks, is just how I feel about it, perhaps to ensure we’re not losing our focus and not forgetting why we’re doing this in the first place.
So perhaps we can donate 10% to human charities and existential risk prevention, and another 2% to animal charities. (12% total)
Or if you really think that animal welfare is extremely important, perhaps you can donate 5% to human charities and 5% to animal charities.
I think by allocating less than 50% of donation money to humans and existential risks (which is 5% if you donate 10% in total) we risk losing focus.
When it comes to donation for existential risk prevention it can be counted in the same category as donations to human charities, because those donations help everyone, humans and animals, and the whole planet.
So 50% of donation money to humans + X-risk is in my entirely subjective opinion, a minimum.
I outlined a lot of reasons for prioritizing humans, some, but not all of them are based on emotions and gut feelings. Many other are based on rational considerations. I’m not sure if these rational considerations are correct or if they might be misguided.
You’re right that asking people to donate more than 10% is too much. But here’s the thing. Animal charities are way more effective than human charities. So giving just another 1 or 2 percent to animal charities can be incredibly effective.
For this reason I love animal charities, they are extremely cheap ways of doing good.
But can we call ourselves philanthropists if we don’t donate anything to people?
According to Wikipedia: The word philanthropy comes from Ancient Greek φιλανθρωπία (philanthrōpía) ‘love of humanity’, from philo- ‘to love, be fond of’ and anthrōpos ‘humankind, mankind’.
Everyone can decide about percentages for themselves. My idea of preserving 10% for humans + existential risks, is just how I feel about it, perhaps to ensure we’re not losing our focus and not forgetting why we’re doing this in the first place.
So perhaps we can donate 10% to human charities and existential risk prevention, and another 2% to animal charities. (12% total)
Or if you really think that animal welfare is extremely important, perhaps you can donate 5% to human charities and 5% to animal charities.
I think by allocating less than 50% of donation money to humans and existential risks (which is 5% if you donate 10% in total) we risk losing focus.
When it comes to donation for existential risk prevention it can be counted in the same category as donations to human charities, because those donations help everyone, humans and animals, and the whole planet.
So 50% of donation money to humans + X-risk is in my entirely subjective opinion, a minimum.