When I first thought about charitable giving, I imagined it in the same way most people do: giving when I could, to causes that were close to my heart, or when a moving story compelled me to act. While there is nothing wrong with that, I came to realize that my giving could be more deliberate, more impactful, and more life-changing if I approached it with evidence, reason, and compassion. This realization drew me into the philosophy of effective altruism.
Effective altruism is about answering one simple but profound question: How can I use my resources to do the most good? For me, the idea that I could not only help but actually maximize the impact of my giving was transformative. It meant my donations weren’t just symbolic gestures of kindness they could become strategic investments in saving lives, preventing suffering, and improving human well-being on a global scale.
That is why I made the commitment to set aside 10% of my lifetime income for highly effective charities. It is a personal pledge that reflects both responsibility and hope: responsibility to those whose lives I can improve, and hope that my contribution will ripple outward, inspiring others to take the path of effective giving.
Choosing My Charities:
Through GiveWell’s research, I discovered three organizations whose interventions are not only evidence backed but also extraordinarily cost-effective:
1. Malaria Consortium that is providing seasonal malaria chemoprevention.
2. Against Malaria Foundation (AMF) for distributing insecticide treated nets.
3. Helen Keller International that is into offering vitamin A supplementation.
When I look at the numbers, the results are humbling. With just $100,000, which is 10% of a modest lifetime income, I could save around 15 lives and protect the nutrition and survival of over 16,000 children. If my earnings grow and I am able to donate more, the lives saved and children helped increase dramatically.
These numbers matter. They remind me that while I may never be a doctor performing surgeries or a scientist developing vaccines, I can still be part of the chain of saving lives and reducing suffering simply by making thoughtful choices about where my money goes.
Walking the Path of Effective Altruism:
Effective altruism, for me, is not just about money. It is about cultivating a mindset:
• Evidence over impulse: choosing causes not only because they move my heart but because they demonstrably save the most lives or relieve the most suffering.
• Global over local: realizing that my moral circle should not stop at borders. A child at risk of malaria in Nigeria or Sierra Leone is no less deserving of life than a child in my own community.
• Sustainability over one off giving: making giving part of my life’s financial planning, so that it is consistent and impactful over decades, not just a momentary act of generosity.
This path is not always easy. It requires me to resist the allure of flashy, short-term charity drives and instead focus on interventions that are quietly, steadily, and profoundly changing lives. It requires humility to admit that my intuition about what helps may not be as accurate as rigorous research. But walking this path has also been deeply rewarding it gives me peace of mind that I am doing the most I can with what I have.
What This Means for Me
When I imagine the lives my donations could save the children who will grow up free from malaria, the families spared the grief of losing a child, the young bodies strengthened by simple vitamin A supplements I feel a deep sense of connection. These are people I will never meet, but their lives matter, and my choices can touch them.
For me, effective giving is not a sacrifice it is empowerment. It reminds me that the wealth I earn is not just for my own comfort or ambitions. It is also a tool for justice, compassion, and global solidarity.
I walk this path of effective altruism not because I must, but because I can. And in knowing that my actions contribute to saving lives and improving health in the world’s most vulnerable places, I find a profound sense of purpose.
My Lifetime Income & Donation
If I assume my lifetime earnings will be $1,000,000, then 10% = $100,000.
(If I earn more, say $5,000,000, then I would donate $500,000).
For now, I’ll work with the $100,000 donation scenario.
My Allocation & Impact
I’ll split my donation equally among the three charities: $33,333 each.
1. Malaria Consortium – SMC
GiveWell estimates it costs about $3,600 to save a life through seasonal malaria chemoprevention.
• With my share of $33,333, I could save around: 33,333 ÷ 3,600 = 9 lives
2. Against Malaria Foundation (AMF)
It costs about $5,500 to save a life by distributing long-lasting insecticide-treated bed nets to local and rural communities.
• With my $33,333, I could save about: 33,333 ÷ 5,500 ≈ 6 lives
3. Helen Keller International – Vitamin A Supplementation
Vitamin A supplementation costs about $2 per child per year.
• With my $33,333, I could fund around: 33,333 ÷ 2 = 16,666 children supplemented
My Results (Summary Table)
Charity My Donation Impact
Malaria Consortium (SMC) $33,333 = 9 lives saved
Against Malaria Foundation $33,333 = 6 lives saved
Helen Keller International $33,333 = 16,666 children supplemented
So, with just 10% of my lifetime income, I could save around 15 lives and improve the nutrition and survival chances of thousands of children.
If My Income Is Higher
If I earned $5,000,000 and donated $500,000 (10%), my impact would scale up dramatically:
• = 46 lives saved (Malaria Consortium)
• = 30 lives saved (AMF)
• = 83,333 children supplemented (Helen Keller International)
My Reflection
When I look at these numbers, it feels incredibly powerful. By setting aside just a fraction of what I’ll earn over my lifetime, I could directly save dozens of lives and protect the health of tens of thousands of children.
This gives me a clear sense of purpose: my work, my income, and my choices are not just about me they can create a lasting impact in the world.
PART B
My Options with $1,000
1. Save the lives of 200 five year olds: This is direct, tangible, and immediate. Every life saved is invaluable. The moral weight of preventing the death of even one child is staggering.
2. Double the income of 1,000 people earning $1/day: This addresses poverty directly. Instead of living on $1/day, these people would live on $2/day, which could mean access to food security, better housing, or medical care. This is not as dramatic as “saving lives,” but it profoundly improves quality of life and dignity.
3. A 10% chance of enabling 1,000 kids to attend school: Education is long-term leverage. If successful, it could transform entire communities, breaking cycles of poverty and empowering future generations. But the 10% probability introduces uncertainty there’s a 90% chance nothing happens.
How I Weigh Them
• Saving lives: This feels the most urgent. Dead children can’t benefit from education or income growth. Life is the foundation on which everything else is built.
• Doubling income: Extremely meaningful, but poverty reduction is incremental compared to the finality of death. Still, improving income for 1,000 people could indirectly prevent malnutrition and illness.
• Education chance: Attractive for its long-term effects, but the risk (90% chance of no impact) makes it much less certain.
My Choice
If I only had $1,000 to donate once, I would choose the option to save the lives of 200 five-year-olds.
Here’s why:
• It is certain and immediate, unlike the 10% education gamble.
• It preserves the most fundamental good: the right to live. Without life, no other improvement income, education, opportunity matters.
• It feels aligned with effective altruism’s principle of doing the most good now, with clear evidence and high certainty.
That said, I don’t dismiss the importance of poverty alleviation or education at all. In fact, if I were making a long-term giving strategy, I might diversify across all three because income and education create systemic change. But given a forced single choice with $1,000, I would prioritize saving lives first.
PART C
One of the lessons I have drawn from effective altruism is that the discipline of quantitative estimation and comparison can extend far beyond charitable giving. In my career choices, for instance, I weigh not just salary or prestige but the potential number of lives or communities I could positively affect. The same applies to how I allocate my time: should I dedicate extra hours to pro bono work, mentoring, or developing tools that might assist hundreds of businesses? Even though the numbers are rough, asking “how many people could benefit?” often reframes my decisions in more meaningful ways.
This habit also shapes personal and financial planning. When considering further education, lifestyle purchases, or even my daily health routines, I reflect on the opportunity costs: how might a dollar, an hour, or an extra effort translate into long-term impact, either for myself or others? Of course, not every life choice can be reduced to figures, but grounding decisions in estimated outcomes helps me remain mindful of trade-offs. It is a way of ensuring that I live not only by intuition but also by a conscious effort to maximize the good I can do with the resources available to me.
PART A
My Journey on the Path of Effective Giving:
When I first thought about charitable giving, I imagined it in the same way most people do: giving when I could, to causes that were close to my heart, or when a moving story compelled me to act. While there is nothing wrong with that, I came to realize that my giving could be more deliberate, more impactful, and more life-changing if I approached it with evidence, reason, and compassion. This realization drew me into the philosophy of effective altruism.
Effective altruism is about answering one simple but profound question: How can I use my resources to do the most good? For me, the idea that I could not only help but actually maximize the impact of my giving was transformative. It meant my donations weren’t just symbolic gestures of kindness they could become strategic investments in saving lives, preventing suffering, and improving human well-being on a global scale.
That is why I made the commitment to set aside 10% of my lifetime income for highly effective charities. It is a personal pledge that reflects both responsibility and hope: responsibility to those whose lives I can improve, and hope that my contribution will ripple outward, inspiring others to take the path of effective giving.
Choosing My Charities:
Through GiveWell’s research, I discovered three organizations whose interventions are not only evidence backed but also extraordinarily cost-effective:
1. Malaria Consortium that is providing seasonal malaria chemoprevention.
2. Against Malaria Foundation (AMF) for distributing insecticide treated nets.
3. Helen Keller International that is into offering vitamin A supplementation.
When I look at the numbers, the results are humbling. With just $100,000, which is 10% of a modest lifetime income, I could save around 15 lives and protect the nutrition and survival of over 16,000 children. If my earnings grow and I am able to donate more, the lives saved and children helped increase dramatically.
These numbers matter. They remind me that while I may never be a doctor performing surgeries or a scientist developing vaccines, I can still be part of the chain of saving lives and reducing suffering simply by making thoughtful choices about where my money goes.
Walking the Path of Effective Altruism:
Effective altruism, for me, is not just about money. It is about cultivating a mindset:
• Evidence over impulse: choosing causes not only because they move my heart but because they demonstrably save the most lives or relieve the most suffering.
• Global over local: realizing that my moral circle should not stop at borders. A child at risk of malaria in Nigeria or Sierra Leone is no less deserving of life than a child in my own community.
• Sustainability over one off giving: making giving part of my life’s financial planning, so that it is consistent and impactful over decades, not just a momentary act of generosity.
This path is not always easy. It requires me to resist the allure of flashy, short-term charity drives and instead focus on interventions that are quietly, steadily, and profoundly changing lives. It requires humility to admit that my intuition about what helps may not be as accurate as rigorous research. But walking this path has also been deeply rewarding it gives me peace of mind that I am doing the most I can with what I have.
What This Means for Me
When I imagine the lives my donations could save the children who will grow up free from malaria, the families spared the grief of losing a child, the young bodies strengthened by simple vitamin A supplements I feel a deep sense of connection. These are people I will never meet, but their lives matter, and my choices can touch them.
For me, effective giving is not a sacrifice it is empowerment. It reminds me that the wealth I earn is not just for my own comfort or ambitions. It is also a tool for justice, compassion, and global solidarity.
I walk this path of effective altruism not because I must, but because I can. And in knowing that my actions contribute to saving lives and improving health in the world’s most vulnerable places, I find a profound sense of purpose.
My Lifetime Income & Donation
If I assume my lifetime earnings will be $1,000,000, then 10% = $100,000.
(If I earn more, say $5,000,000, then I would donate $500,000).
For now, I’ll work with the $100,000 donation scenario.
My Allocation & Impact
I’ll split my donation equally among the three charities: $33,333 each.
1. Malaria Consortium – SMC
GiveWell estimates it costs about $3,600 to save a life through seasonal malaria chemoprevention.
• With my share of $33,333, I could save around: 33,333 ÷ 3,600 = 9 lives
2. Against Malaria Foundation (AMF)
It costs about $5,500 to save a life by distributing long-lasting insecticide-treated bed nets to local and rural communities.
• With my $33,333, I could save about: 33,333 ÷ 5,500 ≈ 6 lives
3. Helen Keller International – Vitamin A Supplementation
Vitamin A supplementation costs about $2 per child per year.
• With my $33,333, I could fund around: 33,333 ÷ 2 = 16,666 children supplemented
My Results (Summary Table)
Charity My Donation Impact
Malaria Consortium (SMC) $33,333 = 9 lives saved
Against Malaria Foundation $33,333 = 6 lives saved
Helen Keller International $33,333 = 16,666 children supplemented
So, with just 10% of my lifetime income, I could save around 15 lives and improve the nutrition and survival chances of thousands of children.
If My Income Is Higher
If I earned $5,000,000 and donated $500,000 (10%), my impact would scale up dramatically:
• = 46 lives saved (Malaria Consortium)
• = 30 lives saved (AMF)
• = 83,333 children supplemented (Helen Keller International)
My Reflection
When I look at these numbers, it feels incredibly powerful. By setting aside just a fraction of what I’ll earn over my lifetime, I could directly save dozens of lives and protect the health of tens of thousands of children.
This gives me a clear sense of purpose: my work, my income, and my choices are not just about me they can create a lasting impact in the world.
PART B
My Options with $1,000
1. Save the lives of 200 five year olds: This is direct, tangible, and immediate. Every life saved is invaluable. The moral weight of preventing the death of even one child is staggering.
2. Double the income of 1,000 people earning $1/day: This addresses poverty directly. Instead of living on $1/day, these people would live on $2/day, which could mean access to food security, better housing, or medical care. This is not as dramatic as “saving lives,” but it profoundly improves quality of life and dignity.
3. A 10% chance of enabling 1,000 kids to attend school: Education is long-term leverage. If successful, it could transform entire communities, breaking cycles of poverty and empowering future generations. But the 10% probability introduces uncertainty there’s a 90% chance nothing happens.
How I Weigh Them
• Saving lives: This feels the most urgent. Dead children can’t benefit from education or income growth. Life is the foundation on which everything else is built.
• Doubling income: Extremely meaningful, but poverty reduction is incremental compared to the finality of death. Still, improving income for 1,000 people could indirectly prevent malnutrition and illness.
• Education chance: Attractive for its long-term effects, but the risk (90% chance of no impact) makes it much less certain.
My Choice
If I only had $1,000 to donate once, I would choose the option to save the lives of 200 five-year-olds.
Here’s why:
• It is certain and immediate, unlike the 10% education gamble.
• It preserves the most fundamental good: the right to live. Without life, no other improvement income, education, opportunity matters.
• It feels aligned with effective altruism’s principle of doing the most good now, with clear evidence and high certainty.
That said, I don’t dismiss the importance of poverty alleviation or education at all. In fact, if I were making a long-term giving strategy, I might diversify across all three because income and education create systemic change. But given a forced single choice with $1,000, I would prioritize saving lives first.
PART C
One of the lessons I have drawn from effective altruism is that the discipline of quantitative estimation and comparison can extend far beyond charitable giving. In my career choices, for instance, I weigh not just salary or prestige but the potential number of lives or communities I could positively affect. The same applies to how I allocate my time: should I dedicate extra hours to pro bono work, mentoring, or developing tools that might assist hundreds of businesses? Even though the numbers are rough, asking “how many people could benefit?” often reframes my decisions in more meaningful ways.
This habit also shapes personal and financial planning. When considering further education, lifestyle purchases, or even my daily health routines, I reflect on the opportunity costs: how might a dollar, an hour, or an extra effort translate into long-term impact, either for myself or others? Of course, not every life choice can be reduced to figures, but grounding decisions in estimated outcomes helps me remain mindful of trade-offs. It is a way of ensuring that I live not only by intuition but also by a conscious effort to maximize the good I can do with the resources available to me.